1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On April 8, 2015, this Court has regard to cases of application for suspension of compulsory execution by this Court.

1. The Defendant received a decision to seize corporeal movables based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with Seoul Central District Court No. 2012 Ghana 487551, and on March 17, 2015, the execution court executed the attachment of movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movables”).

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment asserted that since the plaintiff directly purchased and used part of the movable property of this case (from No. 1 to No. 9), the owner of the above movable property is the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the movable property of this case cannot be permitted.

On the other hand, a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is sought to exclude the subject matter of execution already commenced by asserting the ownership and other rights to prevent the transfer or delivery of the subject matter of execution. The burden of proving that the subject matter of execution has ownership and other rights to the subject matter.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge whether the movables indicated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 alone are the instant movables and whether the said movables are owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) The Plaintiff, from September 1, 2015, stated that he/she was residing together with C in his/her domicile, and that the Plaintiff’s custody of the Plaintiff’s movable property in his/her domicile that he/she does not reside together with C is difficult to easily understand as an exceptional day). 3. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.