1. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gaso120856, the Defendant rendered an executory exemplification of the judgment against C on November 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 20, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C with the Seoul Central District Court 2016 Ghana120856, and rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 12 million (the amount of KRW 7 million shall be jointly and severally with Switzerland Co., Ltd.) and the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 3, 2016 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 14, 2016.

B. On November 15, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution with the Seoul Southern District Court 2016No3587, based on the original copy of the judgment of this case, and executed seizure of each movable property listed in the separate sheet in the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment and 103 Dong 501 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). C.

E filed a lawsuit by a third party against the Defendant by asserting that compulsory execution against each of the aforementioned movables was unlawful (Seoul Southern District Court 2016Gadan45636), since each movable set forth in the Schedule 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11, purchased from F and leased it to the Plaintiff, the mother of C, and that compulsory execution against each of the above movables was deemed unlawful (Seoul Southern District Court 2016Gadan45636). The above court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the grounds that each movable set forth in the Schedule 3, 4, 7, and 8 is deemed owned by E, but the movable cannot be deemed owned by E, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as is.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The ground of objection in a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party, namely, the fact that an article subject to compulsory execution is owned by the plaintiff or has the right to prevent the transfer or transfer of an object to the plaintiff, must be proved by the plaintiff.

In full view of the written evidence Nos. 1, 4-1, 2, and 8 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 8, the Plaintiff and her husband G reside in the apartment of this case from October 9, 2012 to the date.