2. As to the case of application for suspension of compulsory execution in this Court 2016 Chicago87, the above court.

A. Based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of Seoul Central District Court No. 2014Kadan5268014, the Defendant issued a seizure of B, as to the movables in the attached list, which were located in Yeonsu-gu, Incheon District Court No. 2016No. 1486, March 2, 2016 (hereinafter “instant residence”) and located in Yeonsu-gu, Incheon District Court No. 2016, No. 210 Dong 1404 (hereinafter “instant residence”). B. The Plaintiff is referred to as B. [Grounds for recognition: the Plaintiff has no dispute, the entries in the evidence No. 1 and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff purchased corporeal movables with the Plaintiff’s money while moving into the Plaintiff’s residence, and thus, the instant movables owned by the Plaintiff.

B is merely an act of living together to support the Plaintiff, and thus, the enforcement of the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution against the instant movable property, such as the purport of the claim, should be denied.

B. In the case where a third party has a right to prevent ownership or transfer of, or transfer of, the subject matter of execution, a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by raising an objection to a compulsory execution that infringes on the right. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the ground for objection that the subject matter of enforcement is owned by the plaintiff, namely, the right to prevent transfer or transfer of, the subject matter of execution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the subject matter of execution was owned by the plaintiff. The above assertion is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the subject matter of execution was owned by the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit.