1. The payment order issued by the Defendant to Daejeon District Court of the Daejeon District Court of the District Court of the Republic of Korea on November 7, 2007 is the payment order issued on November 7, 2007.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff and C were legally married couple, but the agreement was married on October 11, 2006.

B. C has been registered as a resident in the above domicile since it moved to D on April 30, 1990.

C. On November 7, 2007, in the Daejeon District Court 2007Guj772, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay the 11,753,500 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from November 9, 2007 to the full payment order. The above payment order was finalized on November 23, 2007.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). D.

On January 27, 2015, the Defendant applied for a seizure of corporeal movables located in C’s resident registration address on the basis of the instant payment order (the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 2015No29). On January 27, 2015, the execution officer affiliated with the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Office delegated the execution by the Defendant was executing the seizure of the corporeal movables listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant corporeal property”).

(hereinafter “instant seizure enforcement” (hereinafter “instant seizure enforcement”). 【No dispute exists; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 10; Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings; and the plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings is the plaintiff’s sole ownership, since the plaintiff purchased and used the instant fleet at the plaintiff’s expense on June 19, 2008, which was subsequent to the combination of consultations with Eul.

Therefore, the execution of the seizure of this case should not be permitted because it infringes on the plaintiff's ownership as a third party.

The plaintiff and the defendant asserted that they were living together and jointly engaged in agriculture even after the divorce. At the time of the execution of the seizure of this case, C possessed the title of the instant box, so the title of the instant box is either owned by C or jointly owned by the plaintiff and C at least.

Judgment

Gap evidence 4, 5, 6-1 to 4, 7, and 8-1, 2, 9, 13, and 14, respectively.