1. The Defendant’s execution of the payment order issued by the Suwon District Court for Nonparty C on June 22, 2016, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 2016, the Defendant filed an application against Nonparty C for a payment order for the purchase of goods under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2016 tea6029, and on June 22, 2016, “C shall pay KRW 1,587,500 and KRW 30,500 to the Defendant for demand procedure.” The payment order was issued and finalized on July 13, 2016.

B. On June 12, 2017, on the basis of the executory exemplification of the above payment order, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).

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

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 as to the cause of the claim, the articles listed in the separate list Nos. 1 and 3 are recognized as the Plaintiff’s ownership. Therefore, the instant compulsory execution against the articles listed in the separate list Nos. 1 and 3 should be dismissed.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution of this case should not be permitted since other articles listed in the separate sheet are owned by the plaintiff. However, the separate articles listed in the separate sheet Nos. 4 through 6 (including paper numbers) are insufficient to recognize that other articles listed in the separate sheet are owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.