1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2015 Chicago1020, August 2015

1. Basic facts

A. D and C are married couple, and D had their place of business moved to Ulsan-gu G while operating F in Ulsan-gu E.

B. The Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution against C and D on the instant corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet possessed by C and D (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) based on the executory exemplification of the ruling of recommending reconciliation on the loan case No. 2014GaGa30697, U.S. District Court’s 2015. On July 17, 2015, the execution officer affiliated with the Ulsan District Court, who was entrusted with the Defendant’s execution, attached the instant corporeal movables.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, witness D's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant corporeal movables are owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff leased corporeal movables to C on September 11, 2012, so the execution of seizure of corporeal movables constitutes an infringement of the Plaintiff’s ownership, which is a third party, and thus, ought to be dismissed.

B. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the ground of objection in a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party, namely, that the corporeal movables subject to attachment execution, are owned by the Plaintiff.

In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-2 as well as the witness evidence Nos. 1, 3-2 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the owner of the corporeal movables in this case is the plaintiff or the owner of the corporeal movables in this case, or that the plaintiff again leased corporeal movables to C on September 11, 2012 after purchasing corporeal movables to D around 201 through 2012, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① The Plaintiff is not only unable to submit a sales contract or materials supporting the details of payment of the purchase price in relation to the purchase of corporeal movables, but also to C on September 11, 2012, the period of lease is 2,500,000 won for corporeal movables.