1. On March 2015, the Defendant based on an executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the District Court 2006 Ghana57807 against Nonparty C.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 7, 2007, the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered on May 7, 2007, ordering the Defendant to pay KRW 7,666,66 and damages for delay (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”) against the Defendant’s District Court Decision 2006 Ghana57807, and became final and conclusive as it is.

B. On March 10, 2015, the Defendant, based on the instant judgment, executed a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) with respect to each of the items listed in the separate sheet as set forth in the attached Form No. 2014 and 3463, which was the Goyang Branch of the District Court (Seoul District Court).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 10 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since the articles listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 11, 13, and 14 in the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “each of the instant articles”) are owned by the Plaintiff, the compulsory execution of this case shall be dismissed.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion and C are in de facto marital relationship, so the instant compulsory execution is lawful.

C. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim. Article 190 of the Civil Execution Act provides that corporeal movables belonging to the co-ownership of the debtor and his spouse may be seized pursuant to Article 189 of the same Act when the debtor occupies or jointly occupies them with his spouse. The above provision is applicable to co-owned corporeal movables of a married couple in a de facto marital relationship with which only a marriage report is not made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da34273, Nov. 11, 1997); however, Gap 1 through 20 evidence (including paper numbers) and Eul 1 evidence, comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of arguments, the contractor is found to be C in the process of executing the compulsory execution of this case; the insured is found to have been an application for insurance contract with the plaintiff as the plaintiff; the plaintiff was leased from D on December 31, 2012 to reside in the moving-in report on the move-in report; and the plaintiff is "Yyangyang-gu 15, 5095 Dong Dong.