1. The Defendant has the executory power over the loans loans No. 2016 Mahap240 rendered by the High Government District Court against C.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6:

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against Nonparty C, who is the Plaintiff’s father (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party”), with the District Court 2016Gahap2400, and the above court rendered a judgment on September 21, 2016 that “the Nonparty Party shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant KRW 500,000,000 and its delay damages,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”). B.

Based on the original copy of the instant judgment, on March 16, 2017, the Defendant executed a seizure of each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet in the E-Ground in Gwangju-si, a residence of the Plaintiff and the Nonparty (hereinafter “instant seizure place”).

(U.S. 2017No. 558, hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). 2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Goyang market attached the Defendant’s claim against the Nonparty on July 13, 2017 due to the Defendant’s default of property tax, etc., and the Defendant’s seizure of the Defendant’s claim against the Nonparty. As the Defendant, who is the delinquent, cannot exercise the seized claim, the instant compulsory execution is unlawful and thus, the instant compulsory execution should be dismissed (hereinafter “

(2) The Nonparty: (a) did not live in the place of auction due to the business failure and the Plaintiff’s death at the house; and (b) was a director at the seizure site of the instant case owned by the Plaintiff, a spouse, around June 13, 2016. Each corporeal movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “corporeal movable property”) is a household tool purchased with the Plaintiff’s money for his family’s livelihood as a result of the Plaintiff’s death from February 2004 at the seizure site of this case; and (c) each corporeal movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “second corporeal movable property”) received a gift from the Plaintiff’s wife or her relative.