1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a payment order against C as the High Government District Court 2019 tea 1276, and applied for a payment order against C. Based on the executory exemplification of the above payment order, the Defendant filed an application for seizure against C’s corporeal movables located in Ildong-gu, Busan District Court Dayang-gu E apartment, and F. Based on the original executory exemplification of the above payment order.

B. On October 222, 2019, the enforcement officer affiliated with the Goyang branch of the Jung-gu District Court, upon the Defendant’s above motion, seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the attached seizure list from the instant real estate.

(hereinafter “The movable property of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, since the instant movable property is the subject matter owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the instant movable property ought to be denied.

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the property of this case is owned by the plaintiff in the lawsuit of the third party. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the property of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it is owned by the plaintiff.

[Plaintiff submitted as evidence the record of litigation in the previous lawsuit filed by a third party (Korean Government High Court High Court Decision 2018Gadan4058). Among the articles for which compulsory execution was denied in the above lawsuit, Samsung Computer and monitor appear to be similar to the movable property listed in No. 1 in the separate sheet of this case, it is difficult to determine that the above two articles are the same goods as the same goods because there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the above two articles are identical (which is higher than the present appraised value). 3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.