1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 29, 2014, the fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim did not conflict between the parties, or that on July 29, 2014, the Defendant executed the execution of seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant movable and seizure execution”) with respect to movables listed in the separate sheet in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant gas station”) on July 29, 2014, based on a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 432, the name of the law firm, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “B, 1, 2, and 3”) by a notary public against the non-party (hereinafter “the instant movable and seizure execution”), the said movable and seizure execution is recognized according to the descriptions in the evidence No. 2

The Plaintiff asserts that the ownership of the instant movable property should not be enforced since the Plaintiff acquired the sales right to the instant movable property by acquiring the sales right to the instant claim, which the Plaintiff had already been leased and operated by the Land Land Land Land Surveyer before the execution of the instant seizure. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the attachment execution of the instant movable property ought to be denied, but it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff’s ownership to the instant movable property was transferred to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant against the Defendant is without merit without examining further issues.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.