1. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Seoul Central District Court 2005Kadan193915 against C, the Defendant is on March 1, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Kadan193915, the Defendant filed a motion for seizure of corporeal movables with respect to C movables listed in the separate sheet D and 101 (hereinafter “instant movables”). On March 22, 2016, the enforcement officer affiliated with this court rendered a motion for seizure of the instant movables as the enforcement officer with respect to the instant movables on March 22, 2016.

B. The plaintiffs are currently living together, and the plaintiff A is the father of C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that since the instant movable property is owned by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant’s compulsory execution should be denied. The Defendant asserted that the instant movable property is owned by C.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the Plaintiffs are recognized as having paid the sales price by credit card in the names of the Plaintiffs or by account transfer during the period from November 26, 2010 to March 7, 2015.

Therefore, since the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiffs, compulsory execution against the movable property of this case owned by the defendant should be dismissed.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted as reasonable.