1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 21, 2011, the basic facts C: (a) a notary public prepared and executed a notarial deed on KRW 20,000,000 at a face value of 795,000 in a new village deed 20,000; and (b) on January 26, 2016, the Defendant, based on the said notarial deed, issued a seizure of corporeal movables as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant movable property”) with Seoul Western District Court 2016No. 108 on January 26, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the movable property of this case is owned by himself, the defendant's compulsory execution against the movable property of this case based on the executive title against C shall not be permitted.

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the reason of objection in a lawsuit of demurrer against a third party, that is, corporeal movables subject to seizure execution, are owned by the plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff is unable to submit a sales contract or materials supporting the payment of the purchase price for corporeal movables at all, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant movable property is the Plaintiff’s ownership. Moreover, according to the evidence No. 7-1 of the evidence No. 7, the Defendant’s claim is merely deemed to be part of the corporeal movables attached to the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Western District Court’s 2012No. 283, Jan. 26, 2012, which had been residing in C as of January 26, 2012. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.