A. On August 6, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C with the Seoul Central District Court seeking payment of the agreed amount as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 Ghana626, and the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation that “C shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 11 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the instant complaint to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”). The said decision on performance recommendation was finalized on August 23, 2013.

B. On October 30, 2014, the Defendant seized the articles indicated in the attached list D, 511 Dong 101 (hereinafter “instant articles”) with the Suwon District Court 2014No. 7970, the title of the instant performance recommendation decision as the enforcement officer, and at the time of the seizure, C seized the instant articles to the enforcement officer, although it was not its own property.

Grounds for recognition: A. 1, 2

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is between the Plaintiff’s promise to marry and C, and the Plaintiff’s purchase while living together with C or brought about at the Plaintiff’s mother’s house, and thus, is owned by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution against the instant goods ought to be denied.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, TV Nos. 1 and 6 of the instant goods (Thsung UN75F7200AF), shock and 5 of the instant goods can be recognized as being purchased by the Plaintiff around June 7, 2014. Thus, barring special circumstances, the goods indicated in Nos. 1, 3, and 5 of the instant goods are owned by the Plaintiff.

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the articles other than the articles Nos. 1, 3, and 5 among the articles of this case are owned by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.

Therefore, on October 30, 2014, based on the executory exemplification of the instant decision on performance recommendation, the Defendant stated items Nos. 1, 3, and 5 in the compulsory execution against the instant items.