1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

On March 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court to C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 8, 2015, the Defendant completed the attachment execution (No. 2015No. 13766) of each of the instant movable property on the basis of the original copy of the order for performance recommendation, which was issued against C in a lawsuit (Jacheon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2015Da3520).

B. The Plaintiff, as a child of C, leased an apartment and resides together with C, and each of the instant movable property is the household appliances, household appliances, etc. located in an apartment in which the Plaintiff and C reside.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s 2nd door lock as indicated in the separate sheet No. 27, February 27, 2013, and the same year.

3. 3. 3. It can be recognized that each purchase of 3 shocks and 8 boxes (including 4 chairss) recorded in the same list. According to the above recognition facts, the goods listed in the attached list Nos. 2, 3, and 8 shall be the special property acquired by the plaintiff in its name. Thus, the above compulsory execution based on the premise that the above goods are owned by C shall be dismissed.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the attached list Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are the Plaintiff’s unique property. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the above goods are the Plaintiff’s unique property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, part of the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above, it is so decided as per Disposition.