A. D Co., Ltd. was issued a payment order ordering monetary payment (hereinafter “relevant payment order”) in the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2015 tea 4077 Y case filed against D Co., Ltd., the father of the Plaintiff, and became final and conclusive around that time.

The defendant, as the transferee of the claim under the relevant payment order against the above D D, was issued a new letter of succession execution against the relevant payment order.

B. The Plaintiff’s domicile on the resident registration is “Seoul Strengthening-gun E,” and C completed a move-in report with the above domicile on June 26, 2008 and has resided in the building where the above domicile is located (hereinafter “the building of this case”).

(c)

On May 29, 2020, based on the original copy of the relevant payment order with executory power over C, the Defendant executed a seizure (hereinafter referred to as “voluntary execution of this case”) with respect to each of the items listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “items (1) through (7)” in the instant building, and each of the above items collectively referred to as “each of the instant items”).

【Ground of recognition】 The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that since each of the instant items is owned by the plaintiff, the compulsory execution of the instant case should be denied.

The defendant asserts that the article 3 of this case is F owned because it is the article purchased by F, the spouse of the plaintiff, and the remainder is C owned.

B. (1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant goods with FF’s credit card, the Plaintiff’s wife on May 16, 2016, based on the following facts: (a) the instant goods can be deemed as owned by the Plaintiff; (b) the instant goods can be deemed as owned by the Plaintiff; and (c) the part on the said goods among the instant compulsory execution ought to be rejected.

(2) We examine the remainder of the article, and evidence proving that the Plaintiff is the owner of the remainder of the article except the article in this case.