2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 1, 2013, the Defendant prepared and delivered a notary public C’s No. 43 of the 2013 No. 2013 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) to the effect that the Defendant lent KRW 30,000 to a limited liability company for the imported food of the agricultural company (hereinafter “foreign company”), and that the said promissory notes and the said promissory notes shall be deemed to have been subject to compulsory execution.

B. On February 25, 2015, when the non-party company did not repay the borrowed money, the Defendant seized each movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) in the non-party company based on the instant notarial deed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff purchased goods with subsidies from the State and the Si expenses for the promotion project of food-specific products and leased them to the Nonparty Company, and thus, the Plaintiff is owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the compulsory execution should not be denied.

3. Determination

A. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement in a case where the third party has ownership or a right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter of enforcement, and that the third party has the right to object of enforcement with respect to compulsory execution that infringes it. The burden of proof as to the ground for objection in the lawsuit of demurrer by a third party that the subject matter of enforcement is owned by the plaintiff or has the right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter to the plaintiff.

B. As to the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the health team, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the articles Nos. 1 through 9 among the articles of this case alleged to be one’s own possession, which were alleged to be owned by the plaintiff, are KRW 50,000,000 for the corporeal movables auction procedure, which was filed by the creditor D of the non-party company against the non-party company against the non-party company.