1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Each of the items listed in the separate sheet of the Plaintiff’s cause of the claim (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant items”) is not owned by Nonparty C and D, but owned solely by, or jointly owned by, the Plaintiff, and C and D. Therefore, compulsory execution against the instant items shall be denied based on the executory exemplification of the judgment against C and D.

2. In the case where a third party has a right to prevent ownership or transfer of, or transfer of, the subject matter of execution, a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by raising an objection to a compulsory execution that is in violation of such right, and the burden of proving that the subject matter of execution is owned by the plaintiff or has the right to prevent transfer or transfer of, the subject matter to the plaintiff.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the instant goods are owned by the Plaintiff, while comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5-4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be recognized that, with respect to Nos. 102, 1702, and 1702 on the ground of the land of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, where the instant goods are located, a lease contract was concluded on Nov. 5, 2015 in the name of G where C and D are children, and the Plaintiff was occupied into the said apartment on Apr. 7, 2017, while residing separately with A and D, i.e., son, she was born.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.