The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers).

On December 21, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution with the Jeju District Court D based on the executory exemplification of the protocol of mediation with the Changwon District Court 2018Kadan13601 on December 21, 2018. On August 28, 2019, the Jeju District Court enforcement officer enforced the seizure of the articles, etc. listed in the separate sheet.

However, the number Nos. 1 through 8 in the attached list was purchased by the Plaintiff from E on May 2016, and the electric cart listed in Nos. 9 through 28 in the same list was purchased from F on March 31, 2014, and the electric cart listed in Nos. 29 through 34 in the same list was purchased from G on April 7, 2015.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the articles attached by Jeju District Court enforcement officer are included in the attached list owned by the plaintiff, the defendant's compulsory execution should be excluded.

As to this, the defendant asserts that he withdrawn compulsory execution against some goods, but it is not confirmed whether the defendant withdraws compulsory execution against a certain goods only with the details submitted by the defendant, thereby excluding compulsory execution against all goods upon the plaintiff's request.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.