1. On July 26, 2016, based on the original of the judgment with executory power of the Incheon District Court 201 Ghana 268914 against Defendant C.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 20, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C with the Incheon District Court 201Gapo268914, and the said court rendered a judgment that “C shall pay KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant” on December 20, 2011.

The above judgment was finalized on January 10, 2012.

B. Based on the foregoing final judgment, on July 6, 2016, the Defendant carried out a seizure of corporeal movables as to movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2016No2183 (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,500,00 to C, and on December 4, 2007, the movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant movable property”) was paid in kind by C.

The movables listed in the attached list No. 2 include the movables of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, this case's movable appears to be owned by the plaintiff, and the execution of this case is based on a final and conclusive judgment against C, so the execution of this case's movable property should not be permitted.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s loan claim against C has already expired, but this case’s assertion that the Plaintiff acquired the movable property of this case by payment in substitutes does not constitute an argument for extinctive prescription, and thus, it is not determined separately.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.