A. On October 13, 2014, based on the executory exemplification of the payment order (No. 7714), the Defendant executed the seizure of corporeal movables against each of the items listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant items”) kept at the Plaintiff’s domicile on October 13, 2014.

B. The plaintiff is C and C, and B are children of the plaintiff.

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

2. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff: (a) ordered D to order the instant goods via the Internet from around 2005 to around 201, and received the said goods at the Plaintiff’s residence; (b) the Plaintiff transferred the said goods to D via C; and (c) the Plaintiff purchased the said goods from around 2005 to around 201, comprehensively taking account of the difference between the Plaintiff and B’s residence and the Plaintiff’s residence.

Therefore, the execution of seizure based on the executory exemplification of the payment order No. 2014, No. 7714, Jun. 2, 2007, which the Defendant as the obligor B against the instant goods, is unfair and thus, should be denied.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.