1. The Defendant’s payment order with executory power in Suwon District Court 2010 tea 2748 for the non-party C.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 4, 2013, the Defendant issued a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) to each movable property indicated in the attached attachment list in the Plaintiff’s residence at the Plaintiff’s residence on December 4, 2013, based on the payment order issued by the Sung-nam District Court of Sung-nam Branch, Sung-gu, Gwangju District Court of 2010Da2748.

B. C was residing in the place of compulsory execution at the time of the instant compulsory execution.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the said article was purchased before 10 years prior to the attachment list No. 1, but did not disclose at least the time of purchase, such as claiming that it was purchased via the Internet around May 2010.

Otherwise, the video of the evidence No. 6 cannot be seen as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case against the above goods is justifiable.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the judgment on each movable set forth in the separate sheet No. 2-6 No. 2-7 and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the execution place of this case is one place where the Plaintiff was leased from D on January 24, 201 to live together with the Plaintiff’s two daughters, the attached list No. 2 (felfrigerator) purchased on November 26, 201, the Plaintiff purchased on November 26, 201, all of the articles listed in the separate list No. 3-6 and the attached list No. 3-6 are goods necessary for the slaughter due to cooling, drying, washing, etc., all of the above movables appears to be owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case against each of the above movables cannot be permitted as an infringement of the Plaintiff’s ownership.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.