The defendant's Seoul Northern District Court 2005Kahap1081.

A. On November 30, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the case of lease deposit, etc., the Seoul Northern District Court 2005Gahap1081, the Defendant seized the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) on November 30, 2015.

B. E and D are married children, and A are children of E, and the plaintiff is the birth of D.

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

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is the ownership of the Plaintiff and A. 2) The instant movable is the location of the Defendant’s counterclaimed movable, E, D, and their two children, and thus, the instant movable should be deemed owned by E and D.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 6, the court’s determination 1) can be acknowledged as follows: (a) the Plaintiff kept the movables Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 among the instant movables at F around November 201 and around the time when the Plaintiff was living together with his/her mother; (b) transferred the said movables to the address of Da who was living in D; and (c) the Plaintiff was living in D’s domicile together with D. In addition, in full view of the foregoing facts, the Plaintiff’s items of the movables kept around November 201 and the seized movables coincide; and (d) there is no evidence to deem that D and E purchased the said movables, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned movables were owned by the Plaintiff on the Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 8, 9, and 111, and each of the instant movables No. 4 of the instant movables.

3. Therefore, it is clear that the movable property listed in the sequence 1 to 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 among the movable property of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, and it is against the Defendant’s above movable property.