1. The Defendant has the executive force of the case No. 2012Kaba-2, the Jeonju District Court in the Jeonju District Court of Korea and the Eup branch.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 2016, based on the authentic copy of an executory decision on the amount of litigation costs in the case No. 2012Kaba2, the Jeonju District Court 2010, the Defendant’s Jeonju District Court 2010, the Defendant’s attachment of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) was executed on December 14, 2016, with regard to the articles listed in the list of articles in the attached list of articles located within the former North Korea-gun C

B. The defendant is the plaintiff B's children.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In full view of the facts of recognition as above and the purport of the entire pleadings as to each of the items listed in Nos. 3, 5, 9, and 11 in the separate sheet Nos. 3-7, 9, and 11, it is reasonable to view that each of the items listed in Nos. 3, 5, 9, and 11 in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 5, 9, and 11 are deemed to be owned by the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff, who was engaged in agriculture together with the instant house No. 3, 5,

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case against each of the above items is unlawful and thus, it should be dismissed.

B. In light of the following circumstances: (a) no evidence was submitted to the effect that the Plaintiff was responsible for purchasing the goods listed in the separate sheet No. 10, 12 on each item listed in the separate sheet No. 10, 12; (b) each of the above items is lack of evidence as to the purchase date and annual formula; and (c) the Plaintiff was engaged in agriculture by using agricultural machinery before the Plaintiff died in the instant house; and (d) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as evidence No. 8, is insufficient to acknowledge that the above items are owned by the Plaintiff; and (c) there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff asserts that the attached list Nos. 10 and 12 are prohibited from seizure, but it is argued that it has ownership over the object of compulsory execution, which is the cause of the lawsuit by a third party.