1. The Defendant’s original copy of the decision on performance recommendation for the case No. 2016 Ghana 16243 rendered by Seogu District Court Branching C.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff, after marriage with her husband D, leased and resided in 103 Dong 408 of Daegu-gu E apartment complex, Daegu-gu, 103 Dong 408, and completed the move-in report with F and her husband, who is the Plaintiff’s husband, and the Plaintiff’s husband, who is the Plaintiff’s husband and wife, was living in the same apartment unit 101 Dong 909 (hereinafter “instant residential unit”).

B. On June 15, 2016, in the Daegu District Court Decision 2016Gaso16243, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C, the Defendant rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”) with the effect that “C shall pay KRW 5,286,980 to the Defendant and delay damages therefor” (hereinafter “instant decision”), and that the relevant decision became final and conclusive around that time, on August 18, 2016, based on the original copy of the said decision on performance recommendation, the Defendant carried out compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) as to all the movables listed in the attached attachment list (hereinafter “instant movable”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, video, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff asserts that, on the ground that this case's movable is the household and household goods owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution of this case's movable property owned by the defendant on the ground that this case's movable property is the household and household goods owned by the plaintiff, shall not be permitted. However, the defendant asserts that this case's movable property is not owned by the plaintiff.

3. The instant movable property was located in the instant residence where C had resided at the time of compulsory execution. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence as seen earlier, it is deemed that the instant movable property falls under the Plaintiff’s possession, not C or F.