1. The Defendant’s document No. 846, No. 846, in 2014, prepared a notary office of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office against Nonparty B.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff can be found to have purchased the articles listed in the attached list Nos. 5, 6, and 8 from the corporeal movables Auction Case of this Court on February 20, 2013.

Therefore, since the above articles are owned by the plaintiff, the part concerning the above articles in the seizure execution of this case in this court 2015No220, which took place on February 3, 2015, should be rejected. Since the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, it is so decided as per Disposition.