1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a motion for the seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) with the District Government District Court G on the attached list in the Guri-si E and the 1st floor F (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the case No. 2018Gadan131940 (main office), 2019Gadan112540 (Counterclaim) against D, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the case.

B. On January 14, 2020, the enforcement officer of the above court seized the instant corporeal movables.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant corporeal movables are purchased from H, and thus, a compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables owned by the Defendant ought to be denied.

3. Determination

A. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is sought to exclude the subject matter of execution already commenced by asserting the right to block the transfer or delivery of ownership or other subject matter. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection, i.e., the Plaintiff’s burden of proof as to whether the subject matter of execution has ownership or other rights.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the Plaintiff and H, on September 30, 2015, concluded a contract between the Plaintiff and H that on September 30, 2015, H sold to the Plaintiff the instant restaurant’s cable wind, air conditioners, reflecters, air conditioners, and the instant restaurant’s air conditioners, the instant restaurant’s disinfection equipment, and all other collection equipment (excluding scriptive, TV, and electronic sirens) at least four million won.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the corporeal movables of this case were the goods purchased from H and owned by the Plaintiff alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① The restaurant of this case has registered its business in the name of D.