1. The Defendant has the executory power over the loan cases No. 2015, 13895, located in the Daegu District Court Branch of Posigu.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution with the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch of 2016No. 2016No. 13985 on the executory order of the instant case No. 2015, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant corporeal movables”) on June 30, 2016, in the “Ddag” located in the Northern-si, Northern-si (hereinafter “the instant multilateral bank”).

B. Business registration of the instant multi-party is registered in the name of B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On August 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that each of the instant corporeal movables was owned by the Plaintiff, and that each of the instant corporeal movables was newly purchased while operating the said tea, which was leased from E, the owner of the instant tea, around August 2013. The Defendant asserted that each of the instant corporeal movables was owned by the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserted that each of the instant corporeal movables was owned by B as the business registration of the instant tea became B.

B. In full view of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6, and the witness E's testimony and the whole argument, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Eul, the owner of the instant multiple banks, and operated the instant multiple banks on August 20, 2013, and it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased each of the corporeal movables and installed them in the said multiple banks while operating the instant multiple banks. Thus, each of the instant corporeal movables is owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant's assertion on a different premise is rejected.

Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against each of the instant corporeal movables on June 30, 2016, based on the executory payment order in the instant loan case No. 2015, 13895, the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court (hereinafter “B”), should be dismissed.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.