1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The court of the first instance shall 2014 Chicago135.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2014, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment 2014Gaso263 rendered on April 17, 2014, the Defendant, on October 30, 2014, carried out a compulsory execution of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) by the Seocho District Court Branch Branch 2014No333, the Defendant carried out a compulsory execution of seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).

B. On June 19, 2014, the transfer of the instant compulsory execution, the Plaintiff purchased the instant corporeal movables, which were owned by D, and paid KRW 2,200,000,00 for the purchase price, at the auction procedure of the corporeal movables case (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and the plaintiff's judgment on this issue are that the corporeal movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff during the auction procedure of this case, so the plaintiff's compulsory execution against the corporeal movables of this case, which are owned by the plaintiff, should be rejected.

The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings in the testimony of the witness G of the trial party: (i) the corporeal movables of this case purchased by the Plaintiff at the auction procedure of this case, are currently being used by C; (ii) the business operator of F (cafeteria) having the corporeal movables of this case was changed from G to C, and changed from C to D again; (iii) the Plaintiff was allowed at the second date of pleading of this court to deliver food materials, etc. to D; (iv) the Plaintiff supplied the corporeal movables of this case to D at the second date of pleading; and (v) the Plaintiff was allowed to use the said corporeal movables by taking over a restaurant, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was using the said corporeal movables as it is, without being aware of C, without being aware of it.