1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution No. 2014 Chicago306, Sept. 2014

1. Under the judgment of the Chuncheon District Court 2008Gaso8147, the Defendant’s basic facts against C, the husband of the Plaintiff on August 20, 2014, the fact that the Defendant seized corporeal movables in the attached list to the Chuncheon District Court 2014No. 627, in the residence of this house, is not in dispute between the parties, or that the seizure of corporeal movables was conducted in full view of the entries in the evidence No. 1 and the purport

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the attached list among movable property listed in the attached attachment list (hereinafter “instant list”) is a donation to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff is owned by the Plaintiff.

B. The grounds for objection by a third party’s objection is not limited to ownership, but is sufficient if it is a right to prevent transfer or delivery of an object of execution. If the subject matter of execution does not belong to a debtor’s ownership, a third party, who has a claim to return an object against an executory debtor under a contractual relationship between the executory debtor and the executory debtor, has the right to prevent transfer or delivery of the object by execution. Therefore, the claim against the executory debtor can be the grounds for objection by the third party’s objection (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da16576, Jun. 13, 2003). As to whether the plaintiff has such right, health class, subparagraph 2 cannot be trusted in light of the relationship between the plaintiff and the donor, and the relationship between the plaintiff and C, etc.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.