1. On October 17, 2017, based on the payment order issued by the Hongcheon-gun District Court, Hongcheon-gun District Court, 2015Hu358, Hongcheon-gun, Chuncheon District Court.

1. In full view of the absence of dispute between the parties to the determination as to the cause of the claim, or the response to the order to submit financial transaction information to A and D Co., Ltd. and the entire purport of the pleadings, the Defendant’s seizure of the attached list owned by the Plaintiff on October 17, 2017 (hereinafter “instant goods”) based on the payment order issued by the Hongcheon-gun District Court of Chuncheon District, Hongcheon-gun, 2015Hu358, and the entire purport of the pleadings.

Since the execution of seizure of the article of this case is illegal because it is against the article not owned by the debtor C, the plaintiff as the owner of the article can seek the exclusion of the above compulsory execution against the defendant.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion is that C, the husband of the plaintiff, purchased the goods of this case in the name of the plaintiff for the purpose of hiding his own property because the debt of C, which is the plaintiff's husband, was high.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant goods are owned C, and the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.