1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Since each movable mentioned in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the attached list of objects (hereinafter “instant movable”) is owned by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution against the instant movable should be denied.

B. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of demurrer by the third party, namely, the subject matter of compulsory execution, is owned by the Plaintiff.

In civil litigation, the proof of facts is not a natural scientific proof that is not a suspicion of prosecution, but a high probability that there was a fact by comprehensively examining all evidence in light of the empirical rule, unless there are special circumstances, and the judgment needs to be such a degree as not to be doubtful if it is ordinary.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da67555 Decided October 28, 2010). The Plaintiff asserted that the instant movable was owned by the Defendant on September 13, 2017, on the basis of an executory certificate of monetary loan contract for consumption with Diplomatic Office No. 389, 2017, which was executed by the Defendant on September 13, 2017, that the instant movable was subject to compulsory execution against C (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). However, the Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to prove that the instant movable was owned by the Plaintiff, and there was no other evidence to prove that the instant movable was owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.