1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant, based on the authentic copy of the judgment in the case of this case, filed an application for compulsory execution against the movables, including the livestock listed in the separate sheet D and E (hereinafter “instant movables”), with respect to G, the enforcement officer of this court executed the seizure of corporeal movables on March 3, 2015.

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

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant movable property was purchased from C on February 24, 2014.

After purchasing the movable property of this case, the Plaintiff was executed a seizure while C was kept with knowledge that the period of inspection of contagious diseases was over, and asked C to temporarily keep the movable property until the completion of the prosecutor’s inspection.

Since the movable of this case is owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against it should be denied.

3. Determination

A. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party with the burden of proof is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement with respect to compulsory execution that infringes upon a third party’s ownership or right to restrain transfer or delivery of the subject matter of enforcement.

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the ground of objection in the lawsuit of a third party, that is, the articles subject to compulsory execution, are owned by the plaintiff or are entitled to prevent transfer or delivery to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff purchased the instant movable property from C solely based on the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 8 (including each number), witness G, and H, as examined below, as to whether the instant movable property was owned by the Plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the movable property was delivered by C or that it was delivered by C, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the movable property of this case was the plaintiff.

1 According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the plaintiff remitted 25,200,000 won to the Agricultural Cooperative I account in the name of F, his father on February 24, 2015.