The original of the payment order with the executory power of the loan case in Suwon District Court 2019j1527 is the original of the payment order against the defendant.

1. On November 6, 2019, the Defendant issued a payment order to the effect that C applied for a payment order seeking a loan payment order against C and sought a payment of KRW 5,560,300 against the Defendant and interest or delay damages thereon. Around that time, the payment order became final and conclusive.

On April 28, 2020, on the basis of the original copy of the above payment order on April 28, 2020, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables listed in the attached list as a male support D with respect to corporeal movables located in the Plaintiff’s residence, which is a child of C and C, together.

On May 20, 2020, this Court rendered a decision to suspend compulsory execution on the real estate stated in the separate sheet until this Court rendered a decision to suspend compulsory execution until this Court rendered a decision on May 20, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Ccorporeal movables listed in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion are owned by the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff purchased corporeal money from the time of attending a middle school with his/her birth together with his/her birth at a middle school, and after his/her graduation from a high school, the said corporeal movables should not be subject to compulsory execution.

B. In full view of the part cited in subparagraph 2 of the judgment (excluding the part rejected in the front and rear) and the overall purport of the pleadings, it can be recognized that the part cited in subparagraph 1 of the attached Table 8 is the Plaintiff’s owned property that the Plaintiff used for negligence, regardless of whether the Plaintiff was directly purchased or otherwise purchased.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

(2) Although the Plaintiff asserts that the remaining corporeal movables are the goods owned by the Plaintiff, purchased by borrowing a female credit card in her own or in her relationship with C, it is insufficient to recognize the remaining corporeal movables only by the partial statement of the evidence No. 2.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is above.