1. The Defendant has the executive force of the purchase-price case in the Namyang-si District Court in relation to C, 2014j391.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 22, 2015, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) on the basis of the executory payment order for the purchase price case at the Namyang District Court, Namyang-si, a District Court, 2014j391, and based on the executory payment order for the purchase price case at the Gyeonggi City D (hereinafter “instant address”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. Determination as to the cause of the claim and the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective entries and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (including the numbers with various numbers), namely, the address of this case; the plaintiff filed a move-in report on May 18, 2009; Eul filed a move-in report on January 27, 2010; but filed a move-in report to other address on January 29, 2015; and the plaintiff concluded a lease contract on April 8, 2009 with the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000 with respect to the real estate located in the address of this case; from around April 201 to June 2015, the owner of the instant corporeal movables appears to have been paid from around seven years to June 2015, not to be the owner of the instant corporeal movables.

Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against C with respect to the instant corporeal movables on January 22, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of the payment order for the purchase-price case No. 2014j391, Namyang-si District Court, Namyang-si, Seoul District Court, was unlawful.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.