1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for a stay of compulsory execution 2015 Chicago26, May 28, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 26, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for payment order against B, as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Da50905 decided January 30, 2015, on the ground that the Defendant acquired the principal of the credit card loans and the principal of the loans (total amount of KRW 53,834,413 = KRW 34,214,214,028, the principal of the loans 14,214,074, the principal of the loans 14,627,311) from the City Bank for the payment of the above amount and delay damages against B, and the said court issued the payment order on January 30, 2015. The above payment order was served on B on February 5, 2015, and the objection was not raised, and it became final and conclusive on February 24, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

On May 13, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory execution of the corporeal movables owned B with the title of execution of the instant payment order finalized as above, and the execution officer affiliated with the instant court, upon the delegation of the said execution, conducted a seizure of the corporeal movables listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) at the address of B, which is the execution place (No. 102, 502, Won-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul) around 13:10 on May 13, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, as his wife, alleged that the instant corporeal movables are owned by himself and herself and their birth D, not B, and filed the instant lawsuit. In addition, the Plaintiff filed an application for suspension of execution of the said compulsory execution with this court 2015Kamin26, and this court rendered a decision on May 28, 2015 that the said compulsory execution shall be suspended until this decision is rendered.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff died on February 1, 2012 by her mother E, and the Plaintiff and her mother D purchased the instant corporeal movables with the relevant death insurance proceeds as financial resources, and thus, the instant corporeal movables were owned by the Plaintiff or D. As such, the instant corporeal movables were owned by the Plaintiff or D, and thus, the instant payment order against B was executed with the title of execution.