1. The original copy of the order of payment with executory power of the acquisition money case No. 26369 against B by the Busan District Court.

1. The fact that the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution based on the executory payment order in the Busan District Court Decision 2016Hu26369 against B on December 15, 2016 that the Busan District Court attached the attached list No. 1607 (hereinafter “instant movable property”) with respect to the movable property (hereinafter “instant movable property”) on December 15, 2016, as indicated in the attached list No. 2016Da6341, does not conflict between the parties.

2. The plaintiff asserted that although the plaintiff was living together in B and C apartment, this case's movable property is owned by the plaintiff who had been employed before the plaintiff living together with B, and thus, the execution of this case's movable property shall not be allowed. The defendant asserts that the execution of this case's movable property is legitimate since it is owned by B.

3. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence No. 2, namely, electronic sirens among the movable property of this case, computers are purchased by the plaintiff via the Internet 4 to 5 years prior to August 2015, TV appears to be the goods purchased by the plaintiff around August 2015, and TV was the defendant's credit counselor visited the above C apartment in order to confirm whether the plaintiff is residing in Eul, but did not meet Eul, and according to the end of the neighbor, Eul was unable to enter the above C apartment, and Eul was deemed to have moved to move to the above C apartment, and was temporarily living with the plaintiff. However, in light of the fact that there is no other evidence to recognize that the movable property of this case was owned by the plaintiff, not by Eul, but by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the movable property of this case shall not be allowed.

4. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.