1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Suwon District Court Decision 2016Da3658 Decided May 30, 2017.

1. The Defendant filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables with the Suwon District Court of Suwon District on May 30, 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment 2016Da3658 Decided May 30, 201.

On April 8, 2020, the execution officer of Suwon District Court was seized (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) movables in the attached list in the F apartment and G (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The plaintiff, who is the son of D, has moved to the householder before March 2, 2015, and became the householder of the apartment of this case, and has maintained his resident registration until now.

D on October 17, 1997, it first moved into the apartment of this case.

After that, D had repeated entry into the apartment of this case and the two places of Ansan-si and Ansan-si, and had not been registered as a resident in the apartment of this case since he moved into H on July 19, 199, and after he moved into H on July 19, 199, D had not been registered as a resident in the apartment of this case. On March 31, 2020, he had been transferred to K as his spouse, his spouse, and maintained the resident registration until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 9-1, 9-2, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The facts that the movables listed in the separate sheet No. 4, 7, 8, 15, 16, and 21 in the separate sheet No. 4, 7, 8, 16, and 21 are not owned by D are not disputed between the parties, and all the remaining movables listed in the separate sheet are presumed to be owned by a person who lives in the apartment of this case as a household product

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the movable property in the attached list falls under the objects owned or possessed by the plaintiff while residing in the apartment of this case, and D is no longer residing in the apartment of this case after moving from the apartment of this case on July 19, 199.

Therefore, the execution of this case against movable property listed in the separate sheet based on the defendant's executive title against D should not be permitted.

B. The defendant's assertion is subject to the judgment of the court below.