1. The defendant is a court such as the Jeonju District Court, Kim Jong-si Court, 201Gao124 (2014Kaga16).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 4, 2014, the Defendant, based on the lower court’s decision on the litigation cost determination of the Jeonju District Court Decision 2011Gau124 (2014Kadan16) and the Supreme Court Decision 2012Kao-4 (2014Kao18) (2018), performed compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) against each movable listed in the separate sheet in C, Kim Jong-si, a domicile of C, around December 4, 2014.

B. Around September 2013, the Plaintiff, as C, purchased TV (LG) in KRW 328,370 via an Internet shopping mall, which is a movable property specified in attached Table 7, via the Internet shopping mall.

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

2. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the movable property listed in Paragraph 7 of the Attached List as owned by the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case based on the premise that the movable property listed in Paragraph 7 of the Attached List is owned by C, the

As to this, the defendant raises a defense to the effect that the plaintiff donated the movable property listed in paragraph (7) of the attached Table No. 7 to C, and that unlike the above compulsory execution place where the plaintiff's domicile had movable property listed in paragraph (7) of the attached Table No. 7 of the attached Table, the fact that the movable property listed in paragraph (7) of the attached Table No. 7 of the attached Table was in the place of compulsory execution of this case does not conflict between the parties, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff donated the movable property listed in paragraph (7) of the attached Table No. 7 to C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

3. If so, it is necessary to deny compulsory execution against movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 7. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.