1. The Defendant has the power to execute the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012 Ghana 1018040 against Nonparty C.

1. On September 3, 2014, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet D in Sungnam-si, A (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”) on September 3, 2014, based on the authentic copy of the executory performance recommendation decision of Seoul Central District Court 2012 Ghana 2018040, Seoul Central District Court 201.

(hereinafter “instant seizure enforcement”). 【No dispute exists concerning the enforcement of the instant seizure” (based on recognition), entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the facts without any dispute; (b) the written evidence Nos. 2-7, the Plaintiff appears to have a certain amount of income; (c) the movables of this case are most electronic equipment used in daily life; (d) the Plaintiff continued to reside in Sungnam-si, the place where the seizure was executed; and (e) C had completed a move-in report at the place where the seizure was executed after May 12, 201, with the Plaintiff’s children until May 12, 201, it is reasonable to deem each of the instant movables of this case as the goods owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, according to the executory decision of the Seoul Central District Court 2012 Ghana 2018040, the compulsory execution against each of the instant movables should be denied by the Defendant.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.