A. On November 24, 2016, the Defendant seized each movable property indicated in the attached list in Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Northern District Court 2016No. 110 Dong 1004 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On January 12, 2017, the Seoul Northern District Court 2016No. 5576 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the title of execution against B, as the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016Da603592 Decided November 24, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff, as a female-friendly Gu of B, had B go through a default on its business, was able to move B into the instant apartment, which is the Plaintiff’s residence.

C. Each movable property listed in Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Attachment List Nos. 1, 8 (hereinafter “instant movable property”) is purchased by the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff before his live together with B and used in the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff purchased at the plaintiff's expense, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that it is subject to compulsory execution against the defendant B.

Therefore, on January 12, 2017, a compulsory execution against the movable property of this case by the Defendant based on the executory exemplification of the instant judgment against B should be denied.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.