1. The defendant's judgment with executive force of cases, such as D and E's Seoul Northern District Court 2005Kahap1081, lease deposit, etc.

1. Evidence 1, A2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. On November 30, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the case of lease deposit, etc., the Seoul Northern District Court 2005Gahap1081 (hereinafter “instant movable”) against D and E, the Defendant seized the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”).

B. E and D are married with each other, and the plaintiff A is the children of E, and the plaintiff B is the births of D.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. (1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the instant movable property owned by the Plaintiffs.

(2) The instant movable property should be deemed owned by E and D, since the location of the Defendant’s counterclaimed movable property, E and two children of E and D, are living together.

B. The judgment of this court (1) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap 2, Eul 3, and Eul 6, the movable property described in the Nos. 1 through 5, Nos. 8, 9, and No. 11 among the movable property of this case was stored in F around November 201, but was moved to the address of No. D, who was a director around February 2014, and transferred the said movable property to the address of No. D, and the fact that the plaintiff lived with Eul was living in D’s domicile.

In addition to the above facts, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) items of movable property kept by Plaintiff B and the attached movable property around November 201, most of them coincide; and (b) there is no evidence to deem that Plaintiff D and E purchased the said movable property, the movable property described in the Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9, and 11 among the instant movable property is owned by Plaintiff B.

(2) Although the Plaintiffs asserted that the movables Nos. 6 and 10 among the instant movables are owned by the Plaintiffs, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(3) Therefore, Plaintiff B’s above assertion is with merit within the above recognition scope, and Plaintiff A’s above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the movables listed in the sequence 1 through 5, Nos. 8, 9, and No. 11 among the movables of this case are obviously owned by Plaintiff B, and compulsory execution against the above movables of the Defendant may be permitted by unlawful law.