1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On August 11, 2014, this Court rendered a request for the suspension of compulsory execution against the case of applying for the suspension of compulsory execution.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2014, on the basis of the executory exemplification of the decision of performance recommendation rendered by the Suwon District Court for the Plaintiff’s father C, the Defendant executed the attachment enforcement (hereinafter “instant movable property”) under the attached list Nos. 2014 and 2491 of this Court as to the attached movable property (hereinafter “instant movable property”) located in D apartment Nos. 104 and 1404 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The enforcement officer entered the said apartment unit by inserting a door to the key, and confirmed various items, notices, etc. by the receiver C.

C. The plaintiff had resided in the above apartment since October 17, 2006 after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the apartment of this case on February 27, 2004.

Meanwhile, on October 17, 2006, C made a move-in report with E-Gu, Bupyeong-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul on July 20, 2009, and with F on July 20, 2009, and made the move-in report with the above apartment on October 23, 2012.

On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff registered its business with respect to the mutual high water wholesale retail business with which C was operated.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 4-1, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant movable property is an object purchased by the Plaintiff or purchased by the mother, and thus, the instant enforcement is unlawful.

B. (1) The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the instant movable is owned by the Plaintiff, namely, the reason for objection in a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party.

(2) First, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 7, it is recognized that the plaintiff purchased goods in the online shopping mall on October 11, 2012 and remitted KRW 235,000 to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that he purchased a health room (XAD) listed in the attached list No. 8 of the attached list with the above remittance, but data on the purchase details of the above health room or photographs, etc. that can be known.