1. On February 1, 2017, the Defendant based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in Suwon District Court 2007 Ghana 257365 (No. 2017).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 23, 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with executory power in the wage case No. 2007Gapo257365, the Defendant issued a seizure of the movable property indicated in the attached Table No. 301 (hereinafter “the movable property of this case”) in relation to C, which was kept in the king-si, Guang-si, the domicile of C on February 23, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). B.

The plaintiff is a father and wife of C, and is residing together with C.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Since the instant movable property is owned by the Plaintiff as it was directly purchased by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution of the instant movable property based on the title of execution against C ought to be denied.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that he purchased the movables listed in No. 5 of the [Attachment No. 5] among the movables of this case with his credit card. Thus, the above movables are owned by the plaintiff.

However, with respect to the remaining movables, it is not sufficient to recognize that the entry of No. 3 alone is the Plaintiff’s ownership, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. If so, the part as to the movable property listed in the [Attachment No. 5] No. 5 among the compulsory execution of this case should be rejected. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.