2. This Court made on January 8, 2020 with respect to the suspension of compulsory execution against 2020 Chicago3.

A. On December 5, 2019, the Defendant issued a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”) with respect to each of the corporeal movables listed in the attached list No. F (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) on the basis of the executory exemplification of the decision of performance recommendation as of September 3, 2019 in the Incheon District Court Decision 2019Daso49154, the Defendant, on the basis of the executory exemplification of the decision of performance recommendation as of September 3, 2019.

B. At the time of the execution of the seizure of this case, the Plaintiff was her mother C and G together with his parent C and G at the same place.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant corporeal movables are not owned by C, but owned by the Plaintiff. As such, the execution of the instant seizure based on the enforcement title against C ought to be denied.

3. In the lawsuit of a third party’s objection, the burden of proving that the subject matter of compulsory execution is owned by the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

As to the instant case, all of the instant corporeal movables are objects necessary for family life, such as household appliances, and the Plaintiff stated that there remains no receipts for old goods purchased on the first day for pleading, but the Plaintiff submitted the content of ordering and selling a part of the household appliances via the Internet as reference materials after the closing of argument. However, even according to such reference materials, it may not be verified at all whether the person who paid the price for the goods is the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff was receiving income by engaging in economic activities at the time of the purchase of the instant corporeal movables, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the instant corporeal movables are the goods purchased by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support this.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff may pay money from the Defendant.