1. On the basis of the authentic copy of the judgment of 2007Gayang-si District Court Decision 29551 rendered by the Defendant with respect to C, the Korean Government District Court of Southyang-si on December 27, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the instant judgment in the Namyang-si District Court 2007Gau29551, the Seoul Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government District Court 2007Gau2951, on December 27, 2017, seized each of the instant movable property stored in Category D and 101, which is the domicile of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as the court 2017Gau4373.

B. C is residing together with the plaintiff, the plaintiff's husband, E and his children, who are his father, in the above domicile.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Since each of the instant movables asserted by the Plaintiff is owned by the Plaintiff, who is a father of C, enforcement title against C should not be allowed to enforce enforcement against each of the instant movables.

B. (1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the movable property Nos. 1, 5, and 6 among each of the instant movable property can be acknowledged as the movable property purchased or leased by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's husband E. According to the above facts acknowledged, the movable property Nos. 1, 5, and 6 are entitled to possess and use the movable property

Therefore, compulsory execution against the movables Nos. 1, 5, and 6 among the movables of this case is illegal as compulsory execution against movables not owned by C.

Sheb, however, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the remaining movables except the movables Nos. 1, 5, and 6 among the movables in this case are owned by the plaintiff or have the right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the said movables to the plaintiff. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without

3. As such, the claim of this case 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.