1. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Daejeon District Court 2016Gaso59397 against the Plaintiff, the Defendant is based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Plaintiff.

1. The facts of the cause of the instant claim are as indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4 (including a serial number), and according to the overall purport of each statement and pleading Nos. 1 through 4 (including a serial number), the Plaintiff is promised to marry with Nonparty C, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant objects in the separate sheet Nos. 104 and 902, which are his own money for the purpose of living together with Nonparty C by marriage with Nonparty C, and installed them in Kimhae-si, the residence of the above C. 104 and 902. However, under the premise that the instant objects are owned by the above C, the Defendant applied for compulsory execution (this Court 2016Da59397) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of Daejeon District Court 2016Da3135, Dec. 14, 2016, and the enforcement officer again paid KRW 1700,000,000 to Nonparty 1681.

2. According to the facts established above, since all of the goods of this case are deemed to be owned by the plaintiff, it is difficult to permit the seizure of the plaintiff by applying for compulsory execution based on the original copy of the above judgment, on the premise that it is owned by the plaintiff C.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the denial of execution of the above seizure against the articles of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.