1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the judgment of Suwon District Court Decision 2007Ra1506 Decided April 2, 2008.

1. The fact that the Defendant executed the seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) on June 14, 2016 based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Suwon District Court Decision 2007Ddan15506 Decided April 2, 2008 (hereinafter “instant judgment”) with respect to each of the items listed in the separate sheet as indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 136 on June 14, 2016, is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 9.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment are all owned by the plaintiff, and the compulsory execution of this case against each of the items listed in the separate sheet shall not be permitted.

First of all, with respect to each of the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 9, and 10, comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 6, each of the above items is acknowledged as being an object owned by the plaintiff that the plaintiff transfers direct payments or makes payments by credit card on May 30, 2015 or on June 1, 2015 (it is reasonable to deem that each of the above items is a separate property of the plaintiff, not a public property of the plaintiff and C), and the compulsory execution of this case against each of the above items should be denied, even if the purchase time of each item is after the plaintiff and C began living together with the plaintiff, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 2 and 3, and it is deemed that there was no particular income or property at the time of purchase of each of the above items.

Next, with respect to the articles other than the articles listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 9, and 10 among the articles listed in the separate sheet, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the remaining articles are owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the remaining articles can be accepted.