1. The original copy of the judgment in Seoul Western District Court 2017Kadan8893 against C is an executory exemplification of the purchase price of goods.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff’s father C with the Seoul Western District Court 2017Kadan8893 and rendered a favorable judgment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On August 31, 2017, based on the original copy of the above final judgment, the Defendant executed a seizure of each of the corporeal movables listed in the attached Form No. 1303, 109 Dong 1303, in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, a residence of the Plaintiffs and C.

(U.S. District Court No. 2017No. 4656, hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). / [Grounds for recognition] of no dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Each corporeal movables listed in the Plaintiff’s argument in the separate sheet are purchased by the Plaintiffs, and they are owned by the Plaintiffs, so the instant compulsory execution ought to be rejected. 2) The Defendant’s assertion on behalf of the Plaintiffs that purchased each corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet on behalf of the Defendant C, which

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 (including a provisional number), it is reasonable to deem that each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet as owned by the plaintiffs as owned by the plaintiff A on July 16, 2017, the articles listed in the No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet as owned by the plaintiff A on July 10, 2017, and the articles listed in the No. 4 as indicated in the No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet as owned by the plaintiff B on January 2, 2017, and No. 12 as owned by the plaintiff on October 1, 2016.

However, there is no evidence that the remaining articles of each corporeal movables listed in the attached list (No. 3,5-11) are owned by the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case shall be dismissed only for the parts on the articles listed in 1, 2, 4, and 12, among the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining arguments are not accepted.

3. The plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed.