1. The Defendant is based on the original copy of the judgment with executory power of Seoul Southern District Court 2012 Ghana 26587 against C on April 23, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, 302 (hereinafter “the location of the instant case”) on April 23, 2014 based on the executory exemplification of the final and conclusive judgment of Seoul Southern District Court 2012 Ghana2, 26587, against C.

(In India District Court 2014No3492, hereinafter referred to as "the compulsory execution of this case"). (b)

C On September 23, 2003, the location of this case had been transferred to the location of this case, and until now the address on resident registration has been the location of this case.

C. The Plaintiff and C were married couple, but the agreement was married on July 28, 2003.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that since the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 5, and 10 (hereinafter "corporeal movables of this case") among each corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet are owned by the plaintiff, the defendant's execution of this case based on the original judgment against C shall be dismissed.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the instant corporeal movables are presumed to be jointly owned by the Plaintiff and C, since C was residing in the location of the instant case even after the divorce with the Plaintiff, and actually maintained marital relations.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 5 and 12 as to the cause of the claim, it can be acknowledged that the instant corporeal movables were agreed to be owned by the plaintiff at the time of divorce with C, or that they were purchased by the plaintiff at his own expense during or after marriage or after divorce, or that they were the goods owned by the plaintiff as donated by the plaintiff Eul.

Therefore, the execution of the instant case against the corporeal movables by the Defendant based on the authentic copy of the judgment against C should be denied.

B. Whether or not the husband or wife belongs to any of the judgment made on the Defendant’s assertion.