1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases of application for the suspension of compulsory execution 2019 Chicago44, the Court shall decide on March 18, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father E is the registered titleholder of the F Building G located in both countries of Gyeonggi-do with respect to the cafeteria H (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”).

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against E to claim the price of the goods supplied to the instant restaurant, and E did not object to the notice of the decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the instant decision on performance recommendation”) by the District Court 2017 Ghana31460.

C. On February 20, 2019, on the basis of the executory exemplification of the instant decision on the recommendation of execution, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables with respect to the movables listed in the separate sheet inside the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant movables”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that since only the name of E was lent to operate the restaurant of this case and the plaintiff purchased the movable property of this case with the plaintiff's funds, the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and therefore, the compulsory execution by the decision of performance recommendation of this case to E should be denied.

However, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff purchased the instant movable property with the Plaintiff’s funds because the details of transfer (a evidence No. 2 and a purchase receipt of movable property listed in the separate sheet) submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be said to have proved that the Plaintiff purchased the instant movable property with the Plaintiff’s funds, and no other evidence exists to prove that the actual owner of the instant restaurant is the Plaintiff, or that

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim for the price of goods against the plaintiff or E does not exist due to the settlement agreement and the subsequent repayment around February 2018.

However, there is a right to claim that a third party has ownership on the object of compulsory execution, or to prevent the transfer or delivery of the object.