1. The defendant has the executive force of the case No. 2014 tea 211 in the Daegu District Court of Law in relation to A and B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 5, 2015, the Defendant, based on the executory payment order of the case No. 2014 tea 2111, the Daegu District Court, the Daegu District Court, which rendered a motion against A and B on February 5, 2015, enforced enforcement against each of the items listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant items”) in the Daegu District Court, as the head office of the Plaintiff and the head office of the Plaintiff and in the Gyeongjin-gun, the Gyeongjin-gun, where A and B reside (hereinafter “each of the instant items”).

B. Of each of the instant items, the Plaintiff purchased 1 set of two text air conditioners and 1 set forth in the [Attachment 4] No. 4, from March 28, 2013, the computers No. 5 around March 2010, and 6 around August 7, 2013, and 1 set of TV (LG) No. 7 around March 28, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2 and 3 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to each of the items listed in Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7, it is reasonable to view that each of the items listed in Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7 among the items of this case was purchased by the plaintiff and is owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the above compulsory execution based on the premise that each of the items is owned by A and B is illegal.

The defendant asserts to the effect that "the plaintiff has donated each of the above goods to A and B, and that the above goods are owned by A and B."

However, the evidence presented by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff donated each of the above goods to A and B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to each of the items set forth in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution against each of the items set forth in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9 among the items in the instant case should be denied, since the Plaintiff owns each of the items in the instant case.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the above goods are owned by the plaintiff, and it is different from others.