1. On December 8, 2015, the Defendant, based on the payment order issued by the Jinwon District Court of the Jinwon Branch of the Jinwon District Court of the Republic of Korea (2010 tea 254).

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application for seizure of each of the instant movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”) in the Daegu Northern-gu E, 5 Dong-dong, 308 (hereinafter “instant dwelling”) with the Jinwon-dong, Seoul District Court, Jinwon-dong, Seoul District Court (2010 tea 254), based on the payment order (hereinafter “instant dwelling”). On December 8, 2015, the enforcement officer affiliated with the Daegu District Court rendered a seizure execution of each of the instant movables as the enforcement officer of the Daegu District Court (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”).

B. D is the head of the instant residential area, and the Plaintiffs are transferred to the instant residential area, and Plaintiff B is the father of D’s father, and Plaintiff A is the mother of D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 3 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that, among each of the instant movables, the movables No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 2 of the instant movables (hereinafter "the instant movables No. 1") owned by the plaintiff B and the separate sheet No. 2,8 (hereinafter "the instant movables No. 2 and No. 8") are owned by the plaintiff A, and thus, the defendant's above compulsory execution should not be denied. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that each of the instant movables is not owned by the plaintiffs.

B. According to the judgment on Plaintiff B’s assertion (the part on the movable property of this case) Nos. 1, 3, 8, and 16, Plaintiff B purchased the movable property of this case from the F Company on June 23, 2013 and paid the purchase price by Plaintiff B’s Samsung Card. Plaintiff B, from August 3, 2009 to April 30, 2014, had a certain amount of income. According to the above facts of recognition, the movable property of this case is deemed to be owned by Plaintiff B, so compulsory execution against the movable property of this case owned by Plaintiff B should be denied, and therefore, Plaintiff B’s assertion is with merit.

C. Judgment on Plaintiff A’s assertion of this case 2, 8.