1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2013, the Defendant filed a civil lawsuit against the Changwon District Court 2012Gahap4138 against the incorporated association M (hereinafter “M”) and the Association of Religious Organizations L (hereinafter “LI”), and the said court issued a ruling of recommending reconciliation that “the Defendant shall jointly and severally pay KRW 7,000,000 to the Plaintiff (the Defendant) by September 30, 2013,” and the said ruling of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive as is.

(hereinafter “instant decision”). (b)

On September 2, 2014, the Defendant seized the movable property of an incorporated association M on September 2, 2014.

(C) Upon the instant decision, the Defendant seized each movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant movable property”) on March 31, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant movable property”) on March 31, 2016 (the grounds for recognition”) [Attachment No. 2016No. 607 of the Changwon District Court; hereinafter referred to as “the second seizure”) / [the grounds for recognition] / The entries in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, and 3 (including the serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Each of the instant movables claimed by the Plaintiffs is owned by each of the Plaintiffs as shown in the separate sheet No. 2. As the Defendant seized M’s movables through the primary seizure, the Defendant temporarily lent each of the instant movables.

Therefore, according to the decision of this case against M&I, compulsory execution against each of the movables of this case owned by the plaintiffs should be denied.

B. The ground of objection in the lawsuit of demurrer against a third party, that is, the burden of proving that the goods subject to compulsory execution are the plaintiffs' ownership, is the plaintiffs.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, including the witness N's testimony as shown in the plaintiffs' assertion, is whether the data such as tax invoices and estimates submitted by the plaintiffs are prepared as to each of the movables in this case.