1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that the Defendant applied for compulsory execution (Tgu District Court E) against the movables of this case as the executive title stated in the purport of the claim and the seizure thereof on December 27, 2019 did not conflict between the parties.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the movable property of this case is in partnership with D and has been invested in the partnership business, and that the ownership under the partnership business agreement is owned by himself, so compulsory execution of the movable property of this case should be denied unfairly.

In light of the facts (Evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6) that D’s ownership of the instant movable in the procedure of identifying the relationship with the Plaintiff, D’s property in the instant pleading, and D’s property specification of D’s ownership of the instant movable, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant movable property was owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion: Dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim