1. The Defendant, at the Suwon District Court 2016Na20654, has an executory conciliation of the damage compensation case against Nonparty C and D.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence No. 6 and the purport of all pleadings:

The defendant filed a lawsuit against the non-party C and D (hereinafter referred to as "non-party C") who is the plaintiff's parent, as the head of Suwon District Court 2016Gada11946, and received a partial winning judgment, and filed an appeal with the Suwon District Court 2016Na20654.

B. The above appellate court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation, including that “the Nonparty jointly pays KRW 14,153,491 to the Defendant and delay damages therefor,” and the said decision was finalized on May 9, 2017.

C. On May 16, 2017, based on the above original ruling, the Defendant executed a seizure of each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet E in the Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, the domicile of the Plaintiff and the Nonparty.

(U.S. 2017No. 1167, hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). 2. The parties’ assertion and judgment

A. Party’s assertion 1) Each of the corporeal movables No. 7 and 9 (hereinafter “corporeal movables No. 1”) among each of the corporeal movables listed in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) The Plaintiff directly purchased corporeal movables No. 2,6, and 10 of the No. 2, 6, and 10 (hereinafter “No. 2 corporeal movables”) by using a credit card, and the entire corporeal movables Nos. 1 and 2 are “each corporeal movables of

(2) Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Nonparty purchased 3,00,000 won in cash received from the Plaintiff. Therefore, since each of the instant corporeal movables was owned by the Plaintiff, the part regarding the compulsory execution of the instant case should be denied. (2) It cannot be deemed that there was a sufficient economic power for the Plaintiff, who was under the age of 19 at the time of purchase of each of the instant corporeal movables according to the Defendant’s assertion.

The Nonparty purchased each of the instant corporeal movables, and used the credit card and account in the name of the Plaintiff.