1. Based on the original judgment with executory power of Seoul Western District Court 2008 Ghana53659 against B, the Defendant’s judgment on January 24, 2018.

1. The Defendant: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2008Gaso53659 (No. 2008Gaso-so-so-so-so-so-so-called “C”); and (b) based on the executory exemplification of the transfer money case No. 53659, Jan. 24, 2018, the Defendant executed attachment of each of the instant movable property held in C, 714 Dong 2305 (so-called “C

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that each of the instant movable properties directly purchased by the Plaintiff, and all of them are owned by the Plaintiff, so the said compulsory execution against each of the instant movable property based on the title of execution against B should be denied.

B. We examine the judgment, each of the movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18, among the movables of this case, are purchased by the Plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties that are owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, compulsory execution against each of the above movables is illegal as compulsory execution against the movables of the Plaintiff, not the obligor B, and thus, it should be rejected.

However, with respect to each movable mentioned in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 16, which are the remaining movable property, there is no evidence to prove that the said movable property was owned by the Plaintiff or has the right to prevent the transfer or delivery to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against this part is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.