1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 Ghana5129246 against D.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 23, 2018, based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 Ghana5129246 regarding D, the Defendant issued a seizure enforcement of D’s corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet E and F, as the Suwon District Court Branch Branch E and F, respectively, on August 23, 2018.

B. D is the Plaintiff’s deceptive act, and on April 23, 2018, D made a move-in report on the said apartment on the said apartment, and is living together with the Plaintiff.

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

2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 3, the Plaintiff’s purchase of corporeal movables listed in No. 6, 7, and 8 among the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet on October 4, 2017, and corporeal movables listed in No. 2, among the corporeal movables listed in the same list on the same day by the deceased G as the Plaintiff’s wife on the same day.

Thus, since each of the above corporeal movables is owned by the plaintiff, the defendant's part of the compulsory execution on August 23, 2018 as to the article owned by another person shall be dismissed as illegal.

(2) However, the court below held that each of the remaining corporeal movables recorded in the same list alone by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is not sufficient to recognize that they are the goods owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them). 3. Conclusion, the claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as