1. The original copy of the decision of performance recommendation rendered by the Defendant to the Suwon District Court in relation to C is an executory exemplification of the Suwon District Court Decision 2014 Ghana973.

1. Examining the reasoning of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number) as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff married with D on October 2004, but married on June 2, 2011. After which the Plaintiff married with C on February 14, 2012, the Plaintiff divorced on or around June 24, 2013. D purchased the television set forth in the separate sheet No. 1 on or around December 16, 2008, and then agreed that the Plaintiff would have acquired, and the Plaintiff would have agreed that corporeal movables, such as television at the time of divorce with the Plaintiff, were to be used by the Plaintiff. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the lower court, the Plaintiff’s claim for corporeal movables and corporeal movables in the separate sheet No. 1 should be recognized as owned by the Plaintiff’s daily life on or around August 26, 201, and the Plaintiff’s claim for corporeal movables in the above list No. 314,71.

2. As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that since C's fidelity guarantee was given to the plaintiff at the time when C committed assault against the defendant and was charged with the defendant and his domicile in the Republic of Korea was a de facto marital relationship with C in light of the fact that C's domicile in the Republic of Korea was a de facto marital relationship, it can be viewed that the corporeal movables in this case are jointly possessed by the plaintiff and C as joint ownership. In such a case, Article 190 of

However, there is no evidence to prove the above assertion, and as seen earlier, the plaintiff and C may recognize the fact of divorce around June 24, 2013, and the defendant's above assertion is rejected.