1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On February 19, 2016, this Court rendered a request for the suspension of compulsory execution against 2016 Chicago4.

Basic Facts

A. Upon completing the marriage report on June 7, 1990, the Plaintiff and C maintained the legal marital relationship, and they were married on May 11, 2005.

B. In the Daejeon District Court 2007Ra225 Urging case brought by the Defendant against C, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay on April 4, 2007, “C shall pay to the Defendant 3,795,000 won and 20% interest per annum from the next day of the service of the original copy of the payment order to the day of full payment.” The above payment order was served to C on April 5, 2007 and confirmed on April 20, 2007.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). C.

On February 2, 2016, the enforcement officer belonging to the Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, who was entrusted with the execution by the defendant, conducted a seizure execution on each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet on the basis of the executory exemplification of the payment order of this case, at the D D above ground of Chungcheongnam-nam District Court.

(hereinafter “instant attachment enforcement” (hereinafter “instant attachment enforcement”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, has resided without economic relation, after consultation with C on May 11, 2005.

On January 12, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 4,059 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, the place where the instant seizure was conducted, and then ships the instant corporeal movables in the separate sheet to the rhyth association of the United Nations Association by producing rhymnastoma in a vinyl located on the ground. Each corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet are things owned by the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff purchased at his own expense in order to run the said agriculture.

Therefore, the execution of the seizure of this case should not be permitted because it infringes on the plaintiff's ownership as a third party.

Judgment

The following circumstances, i.e., the land of this case, which can be known by the purport of Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Gap evidence 10, 13, Eul evidence 1 through 4, and all types of images and pleadings, are owned by Eul.