1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 17, 2014, between the Defendant and B, the Defendant repaid KRW 69,150,000 until December 31, 2016, and a notarial deed (Law Firm Limited Liability Law Firm 2016) was drafted with the content that the Defendant would repay KRW 5 million as of the end of each month from April 2016 to November 31, 2016, and that the remainder KRW 29,150,000 as of December 31, 2016.

B. The Defendant filed an application for the seizure of corporeal movables on the basis of the above notarial deed, and the execution officer of this court conducted the seizure execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) on the movables indicated in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] The substantial facts of this Court, the absence of dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case’s machinery is owned by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution of this case’s movable property should not be permitted.

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). However, since there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff owned the instant movable property in this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is rejected and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.