1. On June 20, 2019, the Defendant’s notary public against C is based on the No. 78 of the D Deed No. 78 of 2017, Jun. 20, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 20, 2019, the Defendant, based on the instant notarial deed against C on June 20, 2019, performed compulsory execution on each of the instant movable property, F buildings in Silung-si, where C resides, and G.

B. On September 21, 2018, among each of the instant movables, the Plaintiff purchased one of the coolants, laundry machine, and electronic sirens as indicated in the [Attachment List Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “nets”) Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts as to each of the movables Nos. 1, 2, and 3, it is reasonable to view that each of the movables Nos. 1, 2, and 3 among the movables of this case was purchased by the Plaintiff and is owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the above compulsory execution based on the premise that the said movables are owned by C is unlawful.

Therefore, compulsory execution against each movable mentioned above Nos. 1, 2, and 3 should not be permitted.

B. As to each of the movables set forth in Nos. 4, 5, and 6, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution against each of the said movables should be denied, since each of the movables set forth in Nos. 4, 5, and 6 among the movables of this case is owned by the Plaintiff.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that each of the above movables is owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a circumstance that the Plaintiff did not reach the due date or partially repaid the instant notarial deed. However, it is only a reason for C, the obligor of the instant notarial deed, to file a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant, and it does not constitute a reason for the Plaintiff to claim as a lawsuit of objection by a third party.

We cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder.