1. The defendant is based on the original copy of the judgment with executory power of the Seoul Central District Court 2009 Ghana 262389 against Nonparty B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 23, 2015, the Defendant seized each movable property listed in the attached attachment list in C, 309 Dong 3204 Dong 1204, which was owned by the Plaintiff based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 2009Da 2662389 against Nonparty B.

B. Among movables listed in the attached attachment list, movables Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are items purchased by the Plaintiff and stored in the above apartment. Of movables listed in the same list, movables Nos. 4, 5 among movables listed in the same list are those brought by B, who are the Plaintiff’s land, and have leased one column for the room of the above apartment from the Plaintiff.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap 1-8 (including virtual number), and the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts established, it is reasonable to view movable property Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 among movable property listed in the attached attachment list as owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, a compulsory execution against the said movable property by the Defendant based on the executive title against B is not allowed.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that since the movables No. 4 and 5 among the movables listed in the attached attachment list are owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the above movables based on the enforcement title against B is unjustifiable. However, as seen earlier, the above movables are things brought up by B residing in the room No. 1 column of the apartment owned by the Plaintiff, and they should be deemed as owned by B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the above movables are owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.