1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In light of the record on the evidence No. 1, the Defendant’s execution of seizure (hereinafter “execution of seizure”) by the Suwon District Court 2018No. 6238 as to each of the movables listed in the separate list No. 2, 6, and 11 (hereinafter “instant movables”) on November 6, 2018, pursuant to the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee’s 2016 Date D (hereinafter “D”) against D (hereinafter “D”) pursuant to the protocol of November 17, 2018.

2. The plaintiff asserts that this case's movable property is owned by the plaintiff and leased it to D, so this case's seizure execution should not be allowed.

However, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff purchased the movable property of this case and leased it to D as it is, and there is no evidence to prove that it is insufficient to recognize only with the statement of evidence Nos. 3 and 4. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.