1. The Defendant’s judgment based on D’s executory exemplification of Seoul Southern District Court 2013Kadan59153 (No. 2016) on May 17, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 15, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D with Seoul Southern District Court No. 2013Kadan59153, the Defendant rendered a judgment without holding any pleadings that “D shall pay to D the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 45,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from November 7, 2013 to the date of full payment.” This judgment became final and conclusive on March 5, 2014.

B. Based on the foregoing final judgment, the Defendant: (a) on April 29, 2015, set forth in the Attached Attachment List.

1. to 1.

9. As to the movables (hereinafter “instant movables”), a seizure and auction of corporeal movables was conducted under this Court’s 2015No600.

C. The Plaintiff purchased the instant movable property at KRW 3,160,000 in the above auction procedure.

Based on the above final judgment, on May 17, 2016, the Defendant again seized corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) as to the movables indicated in the attached attachment list containing the instant movables.

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

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since the movable of this case is owned by the plaintiff, the compulsory execution of this case based on the final judgment of D shall not be permitted.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff, as D’s words, purchased the instant movable at auction for more than one year, was kept in the custody of No. 1404, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, 305, Dong-gu, 1404, the residence of D, the Plaintiff, as D, the instant movable was donated to D, or renounced its ownership, compulsory execution of the instant movable should be permitted

B. On the other hand, just because the Defendant asserted, the Plaintiff donated the instant movable property purchased through auction to D.

It is insufficient to recognize that the movable property of this case has renounced ownership, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion.