1. The Defendant’s loan case No. 2013Gau1052 decided January 24, 2014, which was the Cheongju District Court of the Cheongju District Court of Korea.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 24, 2014, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant corporeal movables”) on June 7, 2016, based on the executory exemplification of a final and conclusive judgment in the loan case No. 2013Da1052 Decided January 24, 2014, the Cheongju District Court of the Republic of Korea ( Daejeon District Court 2016No1946).

B. On September 12, 2014, the Plaintiff’s mother C resided separately from the Plaintiff, and completed a move-in report with the location of each of the instant corporeal movables as well as the Plaintiff’s residence and reside therein.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since each of the instant corporeal movables is owned by the plaintiff, the defendant's compulsory execution against each of the instant corporeal movables should be dismissed as unlawful.

B. If we gather the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements No. 2, No. 2, and No. 5-5, it is recognized that the corporeal movables listed in No. 1 of the attached list were purchased and delivered by the plaintiff, and thus, it is judged that they were owned by the plaintiff.

Therefore, based on the executory exemplification of the final and conclusive judgment in the loan case No. 2013Gada1052 Decided January 24, 2014, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against C with respect to corporeal movables listed in the attached list No. 1 on June 7, 2016 should be denied as it is unlawful as compulsory execution against the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff, not the obligor C.

However, there is no evidence to prove that corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2-5, which are remaining corporeal movables, were purchased by the plaintiff or owned by the plaintiff due to other reasons, and the reason that C moved to the plaintiff's residence is difficult to conclude that each of the above corporeal movables was owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the argument that each corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2-5, the plaintiff's separate list

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is the scope of recognition.