A. On December 16, 2014, the Defendant enforcement against B on the basis of the executory exemplification of the payment order issued by the Seoul Southern District Court 2014Guj20873, Suwon District Court 2014Da9047, Suwon District Court 2014Da 9047, the Plaintiff, who is his or her father and B’s wife, was executing each of the articles listed in the separate sheet C and 107 Dong 203 (hereinafter “each of the instant articles”).

B. In filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed an application with this court to suspend compulsory execution under 2015Kaga10002, and received a decision to suspend compulsory execution on January 13, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff had certain income from around 2012 to around 2014.

On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased each of the items listed in one of the items listed in the instant case in KRW 752,00,000, KRW 9830, and KRW 1,598,780, from among the items listed in the instant case, around February 12, 2013, and around November 17, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased each of the items listed in five of the items listed in the instant case in KRW 1,598,780, respectively, and the said card price was settled from the account in the name of the Plaintiff.

E. In addition, around February 2, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased money in the account opened in the Plaintiff’s name and 7 articles from among each of the instant articles in KRW 49,000, and around March 29, 2014, 95,300, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, 8 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to each of the items listed in 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 among the items of this case, it is reasonable to view that the items listed in 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 among the items of this case are purchased by the plaintiff's own income and are owned by the plaintiff. Therefore, the compulsory execution based on the premise that each of the items of this case is owned by B is unlawful.

3. The Plaintiff’s determination as to each of the goods listed in 3, 6, 8, and 9 among the goods of this case is that the goods listed in 3, 6, 8, and 9 among the goods of this case are prohibited from seizure under Article 195 subparag. 1 of the Civil Execution Act.