1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 20, 199, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with D on December 20, 199, and was divorced on March 30, 2020.

B. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant issued a payment order against D to the effect that “A debtor (D) would pay KRW 17,959,740 and delayed damages to the creditor (Defendant)” and the above payment order was finalized on December 14, 2013.

(c)

B. On September 1, 2020, the Defendant seized the movable property in the attached list located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E apartment and Fho (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant movable property”) under the title of enforcement with the payment order confirmed in the above paragraph’s resident registration.

【Unfounded grounds for recognition】 Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and D were divorced prior to the Defendant’s execution of seizure, and D did not reside in the instant apartment at the time of seizure execution.

On the other hand, since the movable of this case is the object of the plaintiff who purchased the movable of this case at his own monthly salary, or the plaintiff's speech and gifted by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the movable of this case is unfair.

B. In the lawsuit of demurrer by a third party, the burden of proving that the subject matter of compulsory execution is owned by the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff and D have been divorced by agreement prior to execution of seizure of the movable property of this case.

Even if not later than five months have passed after the attachment execution, D had resident registration in the apartment of this case, and mail such as D's health insurance premium receipts and notice of enlistment in active duty service have been discovered inside the apartment of this case, it is unclear whether the Plaintiff and D independently and independently engaged in daily life and economic activities after the divorce, and ② The movable of this case is the Plaintiff and D.