1. The Defendant’s enforcement of the payment order (Seoul Eastern District Court) No. 2013 tea5286, Jul. 18, 2013 against C is the Seoul Eastern District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 10, 2015, the Defendant filed a payment order with the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2013 tea5286, which became final and conclusive. Accordingly, the Defendant’s seizure and auction of corporeal movables was conducted on June 10, 2015 as the Sungnam Branch of the Suwon District Court 2015No1443.

D purchased the goods listed in the attached list 1 at the above auction procedure, and the plaintiff purchased the goods from D on the same day.

B. The plaintiff is residing in Gwangju City E, such as C's children, and C.

C. On November 25, 2015, upon the above payment order, the Defendant conducted a seizure of corporeal movables against the articles listed in the separate sheet No. 2015No2890 (hereinafter “instant movable”).

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution”). Of the instant movables, the No. 16 and No. 17 were not included in the [Attachment 1] list.

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 or Gap evidence 12, and purport of whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since this case's movable property appears to be owned by the plaintiff and possessed by the plaintiff, the execution of this case's compulsory execution is unfair because it was based on the payment order finalized against C, and thus, it should be rejected.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is registered as the location of the movable property of this case only on the resident registration, and the place of actual residence is the house of the plaintiff's workplace, so the plaintiff is not the owner of the above movable property, and even if the plaintiff is the owner, it is highly likely that he was donated to C. Since some articles are not specified in the attached Table 1 list, compulsory execution by the defendant should be allowed.

In light of the fact-finding reply by the president of the Gwangju Urban Management Corporation, the plaintiff was recognized as residing in the company house from February 10, 2012 to the present company house. However, in full view of the evidence No. 1 and the above fact-finding reply, the plaintiff's company house and the movable property of this case.