1. The original copy of the payment order against Nonparty C and D issued by the Busan District Court No. 2007 tea20480 is an executory exemplification of the payment order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 24, 2007, the Defendant filed a loan payment order with the Busan District Court 2007 tea 20480 against Nonparty C and D (hereinafter “Nonindicteds”), and issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on August 24, 2007, stating that “The Nonparty jointly and severally filed a claim with the Defendant for a payment order of KRW 10,000,000,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from June 9, 1998 to August 24, 2007; and that “the payment order shall be 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on September 8, 2007.

B. On November 10, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables with Busan District Court 2016No. 5716 with the title of execution of the instant payment order. On November 10, 2016, the said court enforcement officer E executed seizure of each of the items listed in the attached list at the Plaintiff’s domicile where the Plaintiff and the Nonparty reside together (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 9 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and 13 through 19 (including each number) as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that each of the items listed in the separate sheet is purchased and owned by the plaintiff, and the items listed in the separate sheet Nos. 8 are items leased and possessed by the plaintiff from the non-party corporation, the compulsory execution of this case under the premise that each of the items listed in the separate sheet No. 8 is owned by the non-party.

① At the time of the instant compulsory execution, the head of the household was the Plaintiff on the resident registration of the Plaintiff’s domicile, and the Nonparty, the parent of the Plaintiff, appears to have been an aged person over 65 and did not engage in economic activities. ② The name of the lessee of the apartment building at the Plaintiff’s domicile is also the Plaintiff.