1. The Defendant’s enforcement of the case claiming the return of the guaranteed debt (No. 2017Gadan26671) against Nonparty B.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 29, 2019, the Defendant rendered a final and conclusive judgment in favor of Nonparty B in the claim for the refund of the guaranteed debt by the Gwangju District Court Decision 2017Da26671, the title of execution, with respect to the movable property indicated in the separate sheet in the Southern-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F apartment G (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The apartment house of this case is leased by the Plaintiff, who is the son of B, and is the residence where the Plaintiff and B live together.

[Ground of recognition] Gap's evidence 1, 2, 4, Gap's evidence 1, 2-1, 2-2, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment on each of the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 as indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 8-1, 2, and 10-1 through 16 of the evidence Nos. 10-1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9, each of the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 is awarded in a movable auction procedure conducted at the residence of B at around 2015 and transferred to the apartment of this case. The things listed in the separate sheet No. 2 are owned by H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”), and according to the above facts, the above items are owned by the plaintiff and those owned by the plaintiff to H by leasing them to the owner, and each of the items listed in the separate list Nos 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 97.

B. The plaintiff alleged that each part of the articles listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6 and 10 was moved to the apartment of this case after being awarded a successful bid by the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the plaintiff's allegation in this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's objection.