A. On September 17, 2018, the Defendant: (a) executed a seizure of the instant corporeal movables located in the Plaintiff’s residence on the ground that the executory payment order in the Seoul Southern District Court 2015Hu40609 case was the executory title of D’s execution title; and (b) executed the seizure of D’

(U.S. 2017No726, hereinafter referred to as "the compulsory execution of this case"). (b)

The plaintiff is the mother of D.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution of this case based on the payment order against D should not be denied because all of the corporeal movables in this case are owned by the plaintiff.

B. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement in the event that the third party has ownership or right to block transfer or transfer of the subject matter of enforcement, and that the third party raises an objection to compulsory execution that infringes on the subject matter, and the burden of proving that the subject matter of enforcement is owned by the plaintiff or has the right to block transfer of the subject matter to the plaintiff is the plaintiff.

Articles possessed by the plaintiff or purchased on the plaintiff's account from among the corporeal movables in this case may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 5 (including paper numbers).

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the remaining corporeal movables were purchased on the plaintiff's account in the case of the remaining corporeal movables.

(No evidence exists or the nominal owner of a settlement card is confirmed) Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case is reasonable not to permit only the corporeal movables listed in the Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, and 12 among the corporeal movables in this case.

In this regard, the defendant argued that each of the above corporeal movables was purchased by using the plaintiff's credit card with the funds of D, but there is an import to D.