1. The Defendant’s executive force against C of the Daegu District Court Branch Decision No. 2014 Ghana9733 Decided August 20, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2015, the Defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the 2014Gaso9733 Decided August 20, 2014, the Daegu District Court Branch Branch rendered a seizure of corporeal movables as indicated in the [Attachment] List D, 102 Dong 108 (hereinafter “instant objects”) in the Daegu District Court Branch Branch D, 102 Dong 108, based on the executory exemplification of the Supreme Court Decision 2014Gasoho9733 Decided August 20, 2014.

B. The plaintiff is the arna of C and is residing in the above apartment house (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). The owner of the above apartment is Cho Eae of the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant apartment is owned by the Plaintiff, not C, and that the instant apartment is owned by the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserted that the instant apartment is owned by C, and that the instant apartment is owned by C, and that the instant apartment is owned by C, the instant compulsory execution is justifiable.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff appears to have resided continuously in the apartment after moving-in to the apartment complex of this case on October 2, 2007, along with the Plaintiff’s son F, and considering the fact that the instant goods were used as household appliances, daily necessities, etc. in the above apartment complex in which the Plaintiff resides, and that the Plaintiff submitted data on the purchase of certain goods such as kimchi and air conditioners among the instant goods, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the instant goods located in the apartment of this case as owned by the Plaintiff as owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution against the goods of this case is not allowed based on the enforcement title against C.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.