1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution of 2017 Chicago218, October 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. C is the Plaintiff’s mother.

B. On September 12, 2017, the Defendant seized each of the instant corporeal movables in Seoul, Nowon-gu, and 202, based on the executory payment order for the 2008Guj869 case, the Goyang-si District Court 2008Da869 decided September 12, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Among each of the instant corporeal movables, each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 7 is transferred to the Plaintiff as Canadian by the Plaintiff’s Canadian, and the corporeal movables listed in the same list Nos. 8 are all purchased on December 4, 201 and owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, a compulsory execution against each of the instant corporeal movables by the Defendant should be denied.

B. Determination 1) A’s objection is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement in cases where a third party has ownership or right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter of enforcement, and the ground for objection is that, namely, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject matter of enforcement is the Plaintiff’s ownership or the right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter of enforcement. (ii) The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject matter of enforcement is the Plaintiff’s ownership or the right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter of enforcement. (iii) The entry of the evidence No. 6 (written statement), which appears to correspond to the Plaintiff’s assertion, is difficult to believe that it is not reliable in light of the fact that the originator is the Plaintiff’s leakage or E, and each of the descriptions No. 2, 3, 4, 5-1, and 2 are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that each of the corporeal movables of this case is the Plaintiff’s ownership, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

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