1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, each of the movables listed in the separate sheet (1), and the movables listed in the same list (2).

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff is indicated as Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 on February 24, 2014, but it is obvious that the plaintiff is a clerical error in the statement on February 24, 2014.

In Busan District Court Decision 2013No. 8566, the movable property listed in the [Attachment B] List No. 1,050,000, and the movable property listed in the [Attachment C] List No. 1,050,000, and the movable property listed in the [Attachment C] List No. 280,000, respectively, can be acknowledged.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to deliver each of the movables listed in the attached list (1) and Defendant C is obligated to deliver each of the movables listed in the attached list (2). If compulsory execution for each of the above movables is impossible, Defendant B is obligated to pay each of the above movables amounting to KRW 1,050,000 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C is obligated to pay KRW 280,000 to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that each of the instant movable property is owned by the mother of the Defendants, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.