1. The Daegu District Court 2009Kadan10604 against Nonparty D’s executive force of the loan case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 2009, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Nonparty D on a loan claim, and on July 1, 2009, the Daegu District Court 2009Kadan10604 (hereinafter “instant conciliation”) was established and confirmed as follows (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

Defendant (D) and (E) jointly and severally paid KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff (Defendant of this case), and the amount of KRW 25 million among them shall be paid in installments until October 30, 2009, and KRW 25 million until February 28, 2010.

If the defendant and the conciliation intervenor delay the payment of the above money at once, they shall lose the interest in installment, and the defendant and the conciliation intervenor shall jointly and severally pay the amount unpaid to the plaintiff and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delay to the day of full payment.

The Plaintiff did not request or enforce the amount of the loans extended by the Daegu District Court No. 99j403, the loans extended by the Suwon District Court No. 2002j860, the loans extended by the Suwon District Court No. 2002j860, and the payment order finalized by the Seoul District Court No. 99j25804.

The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

Litigation costs and conciliation costs shall be borne by each person.

B. On September 9, 2019, the Defendant, based on an executory exemplification of the instant protocol of mediation, carried out compulsory execution of seizure of movables by the Daegu District CourtF (debtor D) on the corporeal movables listed in [Attachment List 2 through 8 (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”).

C. Plaintiff A is his wife, Plaintiff B is his wife, and Plaintiff B is his wife.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that “The instant corporeal movables are not owned by D, but owned by the Plaintiffs, and there is no reason for seizure from the Defendant.”

In this regard, the defendant is in insolvent by concealing all incomes and property D and B in the future of the plaintiff A, who is a child, and the plaintiff.