1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On September 11, 2017, the Defendant drafted the instant authentic deed stating that “The Defendant shall lend KRW 415,298,000 to C, and C shall pay the said money in installments from October 201 to August 201, 2018, KRW 11,000 per month, and KRW 305,298,00 on September 11, 2018; if the repayment of principal is delayed once, the payment shall lose the benefit of the due date and shall repay the remainder of the principal, and shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum with respect to the delayed principal.”

The Defendant filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables with respect to corporeal movables in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building G car page (hereinafter “instant car page”) operated by the Seoul Central District Court E, with the authentic copy of the instant notarial deed as its executive title.

On December 4, 2017, the enforcement officer affiliated with the above court completed the execution of seizure of movables listed in the attached seizure list, including the instant forest.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the plaintiff's assertion to the purport of the whole argument as to the purport of the argument, the picture of this case is held by the plaintiff who works in Germany as a chemical in Germany after conducting an exhibition in Seoul from March 4, 2016 to March 30, 2016.

Since the owner of the forest of this case is the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the forest of this case shall not be permitted.

Judgment

A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is sought to exclude the subject matter of execution that has already commenced from the transfer or delivery of ownership or other subject matter. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection, i.e., the Plaintiff’s burden of proof as to whether or not the Plaintiff had the right to ownership or other subject matter.

We examine this case in accordance with the above legal principles.

If Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, 10, and 12 showed the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is a paint residing in Germany, and the plaintiff is from March 4, 2016.