1. The Defendant is based on an executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Daegu District Court 2016 Ghana7594 against D.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 23, 2016, the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016Gaso7594 rendered a judgment on D’s loan case, the Defendant seized corporeal movables as to the attached list in Seoul Mapo-gu building 512 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016Da1265 on June 23, 2016.

B. Plaintiff A is a lessee who entered into a lease contract with a lessee for the instant real estate, and the items indicated in No. 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 among the items indicated in the separate sheet are the facilities basically kept in the instant real estate under the said lease contract. The items indicated in No. 3 and 5 among the items indicated in the separate sheet are those purchased by Plaintiff B, the mother of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view the articles listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 as owned by the plaintiffs among the articles listed in the separate sheet as owned by the plaintiffs. Therefore, compulsory execution against the above articles by the defendant under the executive title against D is not allowed.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted that the articles listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 4, and 10 among the articles listed in the separate sheet are also purchased by the plaintiff B, and compulsory execution against them is unfair, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit

3. The plaintiffs' claims for conclusion are partly accepted within the scope of the above recognition.