1. The original copy of the order of payment with executory force of the case in the Jeonan District Court of the Jeonan District Court of the Republic of Korea 2003j458.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap's basic facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8, 16, Gap evidence Nos. 3-2 through 5, and Gap evidence Nos. 11-1, the defendant filed an application for the seizure of each movable property recorded in the separate sheet on the basis of the executory payment order of Jinan District Court 2003 tea458, Jinan District Court 2003Da458, and the execution of seizure was made on February 11, 2014 by the court of this case as of February 11, 2014. On the other hand, the plaintiff may not borrow each movable property listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 12 on August 27, 201, each movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 6 and (7) on Nov. 12, 2012, and each movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 2013, Nov. 4, 2013.

2. According to the allegations and the facts of the above recognition, since each movable property listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 12 can be known to be owned by the plaintiff, the seizure execution conducted on February 11, 2014 upon the defendant's request is illegal for the goods owned by the plaintiff, not for B, the debtor of the above payment order.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought to refuse compulsory execution on the ground that each movable set forth in attached Table 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 is owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is not sufficient to recognize the above assertion solely on the basis of the evidence No. 3-1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, since the execution of seizure of each of the above movables cannot be deemed unlawful, the above assertion is rejected.

In addition, the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the compulsory execution against each of the above movables was unlawful since the Defendant’s debt under the above payment order was fully repaid. However, each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 14 and 15 (including the serial number) is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the above allegation is acknowledged, B, the obligor, shall file a lawsuit of objection on the ground of this.