1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 18, 2016, the Defendant issued a seizure execution on each of the instant items kept in Ku Government-si D and 3 floors, which is the domicile of the principal office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., on October 18, 2016, based on an executory exemplification of the judgment in the case, such as retirement pay No. 2015da37061, which is against Kubu District Court Decision

(hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). B.

The plaintiff is the E's spouse, the representative director of the LAC.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ① purchased from the company “F” and was in custody to be exported to Vietnam. ② Drackerian category is a thing that the Plaintiff was in custody to process it in the “G” factory in the “G” company in the “G” company in the “G” company in the “B” company in the “B” company in the “B” company in the “B” company in the “B” company in the “G” company in the “B” company in the “B” company, and all of the Plaintiff are owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the enforcement of the instant case against the respective goods in the instant case shall be rejected.

B. 1) Determination 1) In the case where a third party has a right to prevent ownership or transfer of, or transfer of, the subject matter of execution, the lawsuit of objection by the third party is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by raising an objection to the compulsory execution that is in violation thereof. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the ground for objection that the subject matter of compulsory execution is owned by the plaintiff or has the right to prevent transfer or transfer to the plaintiff. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that each of the subject matter of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it is owned by the plaintiff. 2) Furthermore, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, namely, whether the place of business under the business registration certificate of H's operation, I, and I.