A. On October 30, 2018, the Defendant seized each of the goods listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the goods of this case”) in the Plaintiff and C’s domicile (C and E) (hereinafter “each of the goods of this case”) as the executive title of the Busan District Court’s 2009 tea5938 case as the Busan District Court’s 2014.

B. The plaintiff is a grandchild of C, and is residing together with C in the above domicile.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, and Gap evidence 5

2. The plaintiff asserts that the above compulsory execution should not be allowed since each of the goods of this case is owned by the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the above compulsory execution is lawful, since each of the goods of this case is owned by C.

3. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 to 4, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 6, and Gap evidence Nos. 8-13, it is acknowledged that all of the articles of this case purchased by the plaintiff and owned by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the compulsory execution against the goods of this case owned by the Plaintiff should not be permitted by the Defendant based on the enforcement title against C.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.