1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Kadan89356 Decided November 21, 2013 with respect to C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a loan claim lawsuit against C and D with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Kadan89356 that “C and D shall pay the respective 20,000,000 won and damages for delay,” and the Defendant executed the attachment of movable property as indicated in the attached attachment list, which was kept in the building located at the Plaintiff’s domicile on June 17, 2014 as an executory exemplification.

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). At the time of seizure, the Plaintiff did not attend any place.

B. The Plaintiff and C are married couple, and the Plaintiff is living together with E and F, who are children, at the same domicile.

From around 1990, the Plaintiff purchased on March 5, 2007 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on March 21, 2007.

C. The Plaintiff purchased movable property listed in the attached attachment list with its own credit card and paid the price.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the movables listed in the attached attachment list are presumed to be the Plaintiff’s unique property that the Plaintiff actually purchased and paid the purchase price.

The purpose of this case’s compulsory execution attachment report is that “the name cards (GG representative director C) in the name of debtor C and the debtor’s family photograph were confirmed.” However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff, etc. did not participate at the time of the compulsory execution of this case, and that the Plaintiff continues to engage in the occupation and purchased the building located at the domicile, it is insufficient to reverse the presumption of the above as to movables listed in the attachment attachment report of this case.

3. The execution of this case on movables listed in the attached attachment list cannot be permitted as it infringes upon the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.