A. On October 20, 2016, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff’s spouse D as the Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2016 tea 8910 Credit Card Use Price case, and received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court on October 20, 2016, and the said payment order was finalized as it is.

B. The Defendant applied for the seizure of corporeal movables on the basis of the original copy of the instant payment order, and on September 4, 2019, the execution officer affiliated with the Sungnam Branch Branch of Suwon District Court applied for the seizure of each of the instant movables.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that since each of the instant movables owned by the plaintiff, it is unlawful to enforce compulsory execution based on D's decision as to the said movables.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, since movable properties listed in Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 10, 12, and 13 in the attached attachment list are recognized as movable properties owned by the plaintiff, a compulsory execution against the above movable property shall be dismissed by the defendant based on the original copy of the payment order against D.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the items recorded in Nos. 5 and 11 (the items awarded by the Plaintiff in Suwon District Court Sungnam Branch F case are “flater” or “a complex marb” or “a complex marb” or “a complex mar”) are owned by the Plaintiff. However, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable, inasmuch as there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.