1. The original copy of the conciliation protocol with executory power of 2013Kadan4607 against the Defendant in Gwangju District Court Decision C.

1. Basic facts ① The Defendant expressed C’s original copy of the conciliation protocol in the case No. 2013da4607 case No. 201 as “original copy of the judgment,” but it is confirmed as “original copy of the conciliation protocol” as a result of the search of the court case.

The fact that Eul filed an application for the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables with the executive title, ② As such, the execution of seizure of each of the items in attached Tables 1 through 6, which were attached Table 2014No. 1391 in the same court as of November 10, 2014 (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”) was carried out by the same court as of November 10, 201, and ③ the fact that the plaintiff is residing together in the said residence as C’s children does not conflict between the parties.

2. Articles 1 through 5 of the [Attachment 5] of the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “instant home appliances”) are the Plaintiff’s properties.

Therefore, the execution of seizure conducted by the defendant with the title of execution against C with respect to the above home appliances is illegal.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 through 3, the Defendant, as the above executive title, may recognize the fact that: (a) the Defendant, prior to the execution of the seizure of the instant case, had already executed corporeal movables seizure with respect to the household appliances, etc. owned by the Gwangju District Court, as well as the household appliances, etc. owned by C; and (b) the Plaintiff purchased articles Nos. 4 from the online shopping mall on January 24, 2014 with a credit card or physical card in the name of the Plaintiff; (c) around January 27, 2014; (d) articles Nos. 1 and 5 in the attached table from the online shopping mall on or around February 4, 2014; (e) articles No. 2 from the online shopping mall on or around July 25, 2014; and (e) articles purchased from the sequence 3 of the attached table from the online shopping mall around February 25, 2014.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the instant home appliances are owned by the Plaintiff, and therefore, the part concerning the instant home appliances during the execution of the seizure should be rejected.

B. As to this, the defendant shall raise an objection to the mother C.