1. The Defendant’s order for the execution of the property sentence No. 2015-No. 32523 against C by the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, which was attached on May 15, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. C was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years, additional collection of 503,100,608 won for one year, on May 15, 2015, for a crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (sexual traffic advertisements), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 23, 2015.

(Appeal Court: Daejeon District Court 2015No619, the first instance court 2014dan2645). (B)

On May 15, 2018, the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office issued an order of collection (hereinafter referred to as "instant order of collection") by the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office 2015 through 32523 (hereinafter referred to as "the order of collection") in order to execute a collection charge based on the final judgment of the aforementioned criminal case. On May 15, 2018, the execution officer of the Suwon District's District Court issued an order of seizure of corporeal movables as stated in the attached attachment list (hereinafter referred to as "the movable property of this case") with respect to each movable property located in the area of the Plaintiffs, who are parents of C, and the wife, who is the resident registration of Dongwon-gu E Building and Fho (hereinafter referred

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (the purport of the whole pleadings), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the argument is that C does not reside with the plaintiffs, and only the wife D and their children of C, who have difficulties in living, are aground in the plaintiffs' residential area. Therefore, since the movable property of this case is not owned by C but also owned by the plaintiffs, compulsory execution against the movable property of this case shall be dismissed in accordance with the collection order of this case.

B. The fundamental issue of the instant case is whether the instant movable property is owned by the Plaintiffs.

In light of the following circumstances, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 18, and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the plaintiff's personal examination of the plaintiff A, the execution place of this case is the plaintiff A's head as a residential area, the owner of the building is the plaintiff B, the plaintiffs are the owner of the building's registry, and the defendant is the wife C.