1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of non-permission of compulsory execution below.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "(the defendant only prepared a sales contract and a notarial deed for debt repayment contract for the second movable property in the name of the plaintiff, and only argued that D is the purchaser and owner of the second movable property. However, even according to the witness witness's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument, the plaintiff was actively involved in the business even after transferring D's goodwill to D; D is not well-known about the reasons why the plaintiff prepared and executed a notarial deed for debt repayment contract for the above movable property; and D does not have any funds borne in connection with the purchase of the above movable property; in light of these circumstances, D cannot be deemed the owner of the above movable property); and in addition, "2.0 and judgment" as stated in attached Table 5(5) (hereinafter referred to as "the part concerning movable property of this case") of the judgment of the court of first instance among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

In addition to the following changes, the part of the theory of lawsuit is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The modified part;

C. According to the following facts: (a) the movables listed in paragraph (5) of the attached list No. 5 (hereinafter “the instant movables”) were examined as to the movables listed in the attached list No. 5 (hereinafter “the instant movables”), and according to the statements stated in the evidence No. 14 and 15, and the testimony and the overall purport of the oral argument by the witness K of the party trial, the Plaintiff purchased the instant movables No. 5 from D after transferring E’s goodwill to D; and (b) the Plaintiff deposited KRW 2 million in the account under the name of K’s wife on April 5, 2014 as the purchase price for the said movables. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the instant movables No. 5 was owned by the Plaintiff; and (c) as long as the Plaintiff purchased the said movables after the transfer of the goodwill, it may be deemed that D acquired the said movables