1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Incheon District Court Decision 2013Da67449 Decided January 16, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are married with the Plaintiffs, and D are Plaintiff A’s money, and the Plaintiffs and D also reside in Gyeonggi-gu E.

B. On January 16, 2014, the Incheon District Court rendered a judgment (2013da67449, hereinafter “instant executive title”) that “D shall pay to the Defendant KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay thereof,” and the instant executive title became final and conclusive on February 8, 2014.

C. In the case where the Defendant filed a claim against D against the Defendant (this Court No. 2019Kao115), D submitted a list of properties with the content that each of the items listed in the [Attachment No. 3 and No. 4] is its own ownership.

On November 27, 2019, the enforcement officer of this Court seized each of the items listed in the attached attachment list in the Guk-gun E Housing, in which the executive titles of this case are executive titles.

(F) [Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 14, it is recognized that the articles listed in No. 1, 2, 10, and 11 of the attached list are purchased by the plaintiff Gap and owned by the plaintiff Eul. ② The articles listed in No. 5 of the attached list No. 5 are donated by the plaintiff Eul and owned by the plaintiff Eul. ③ The articles listed in the attached list No. 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the attached list No. 6, 8, and 9 are donated by the plaintiff Eul and owned by the plaintiff Eul. ④ The articles listed in the attached list No. 12 of the attached list No. 12 are purchased by the plaintiff Eul.

B. Therefore, based on the executory exemplification of the instant enforcement title against D, the part concerning each of the items described in the Attachment List Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 among compulsory execution against each of the items listed in the Attachment List should be denied.

3. The plaintiffs' claims are with merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by citing them.