1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Defendant, based on the executory order of payment for the service costs claim case No. 2015Ra677 against the Daegu District Court and the Daegu District Court of racing support for the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), executed the seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) with the Daegu District Court 2015No730 as to the corporeal movables stated in the attached list, which were kept in C’s factory located in the F in Busan City on March 5, 2015, based on the executory order of payment order for the service costs claim case, as indicated in the F in the attached list (hereinafter “each seized object of this case,” and according to the sequence in the list.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Each of the instant seizures, the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, is the Plaintiff’s ownership, and in particular, as to the instant seizures 1, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed (No. 5, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) on June 20, 208, and provided E with the instant notarial deed as security for transfer.

Therefore, compulsory execution against each of the seized objects of this case by the defendant should be rejected.

3. Determination

A. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is seeking exclusion by asserting the right to block the transfer or delivery of the ownership or other subject matter of execution already commenced. The burden of proving the grounds for objection, that is, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving whether the subject matter of execution is included in the specific subject matter of execution and the burden of proving whether it is included in the subject matter of execution.

B. As for the seized article 1, the evidence No. 14 is indicated as evidence showing that the seized article 1 is owned by the Plaintiff.

① However, at the time of filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that the attached article No. 1 was purchased from the company located in the same industry located in the territory of Jinnam-gu around March 2007, and that the attached article No. 1 was seized from P. S. S. on June 30, 2008 at the trial.