1. The Defendant’s original copy of the judgment with executory power in Gwangju District Court Decision 2018 Ghana972 against C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 19, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Gwangju District Court Decision 2018Gaso972, the Gwangju District Court Decision 9,600,000 won, and the said court rendered a judgment in favor of all of the aforementioned judgments. The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On December 27, 2018, based on the original copy of the above executory judgment, the Defendant executed a seizure of the corporeal movables indicated in the attached list D and E, Jeonnam-do, the 2018 main text 5169 of the court of this Court, Jeonnam-do, which C live in, and C.

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

2. On November 3, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff concluded a contract on the transfer of payment in kind for corporeal movables as stated in the separate sheet with C on November 3, 2009. Since the above corporeal movables are owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserts that compulsory execution against the above corporeal movables should be denied based on the claim against C.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Plaintiff entered into a payment transfer contract with respect to the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, and 11 in order to repay a debt to C,00,000 won between the Plaintiff and C on November 3, 2009, and the Plaintiff agreed to keep the said corporeal movables to C, the transferor by means of an occupancy revision. Thus, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, and 11 among the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet attached by the Plaintiff is owned by the Plaintiff.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the corporeal movables mentioned in the separate list Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 12 were paid in kind by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, a compulsory execution against the defendant against the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, and 11 should be excluded based on the claim against C.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are justified.