1. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Defendant in Seoul Northern District Court 2015 Godan256, Seoul Northern District Court 2016.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and evidence Nos. 3-1, the plaintiffs are women, and the plaintiff Eul reported a divorce with Eul on August 21, 2014, and thereafter a de facto marital relationship with D, the defendant made a seizure execution of corporeal movables (hereinafter referred to as "the movables of this case") with respect to movables listed in the attached Table Nos. 2016, May 9, 2016, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Seoul Northern District Court 2015Kadan256 case against D, and the defendant made a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter referred to as "the movables of this case") with respect to movables listed in the attached Table No. 2016, May 9, 2016.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiffs asserted that compulsory execution against the movables of this case, which are their own possession, should be denied.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the movable property of this case is located in the house where the plaintiff D and B reside in a marital relationship, and is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff D and B.

B. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements and videos Nos. 1, 4, and 3-2 and 3 of the evidence Nos. 3-3, the Plaintiff purchased the movables Nos. 2 and 5 of the instant movables around March 2010, prior to the de facto marital relationship with D, and around March 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the movables No. 1, and the movables No. 3, 4, and 6 were the objects purchased before the Plaintiff’s death.

According to the above facts, since the owner of the movable property of this case is the plaintiffs, compulsory execution based on the above original judgment shall be deemed unlawful on the premise that the movable property of this case is owned D.

Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution against the movable property of this case should be denied in an unfair manner.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.