1. The Defendant’s notary public against Nonparty C has the executory power of the notarial deed No. 386, 2012.

1. On September 5, 2013, based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deed No. 386, No. 386, the Defendant’s basic facts, the fact that the Defendant conducted attachment enforcement as Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 2013No. 4185, on the articles listed in the attached attachment list No. 401, Songpa-gu Seoul, Seoul, pursuant to the Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 201, on September 5, 2013, the Defendant’s notary public against Nonparty C did not dispute between the parties,

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Article 1, 4, and 8 of the [Attachment List] No. 1, 4, and 8 of the Plaintiff’s assertion is an object purchased and owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, compulsory execution should be denied.

B. Determination of the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the items listed in Paragraph (1) of the Attached Attachment List on June 7, 2010, the items listed in Paragraph (8) of the Attached Attachment List on July 9, 2010, and the items listed in Paragraph (4) of the Attached Attachment List on May 3, 2012 may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the items listed in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Attached Attachment List.

Therefore, since the articles in the attached list Nos. 1, 4, and 8 are owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the above articles owned by the defendant based on the executive title against C, as stated in the attached list No. 1, should be denied in an unfair manner.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the plaintiff purchased the articles listed in attached Forms 1, 4, and 8 of the attachment list and donated them to C who is his father, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.