1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for suspension of compulsory execution in this Court 2016 Chicago25, the above court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a parent of C and D.

On April 13, 2009, the Plaintiff moved to the E, 501 (hereinafter “instant residence”) in the Asia-si where C and D reside.

B. On May 11, 2016, the Defendant, based on the original copy of the judgment in the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Kadan109542, against C and D, enforced compulsory execution against corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet at the place of residence of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Of the corporeal movables listed in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant corporeal movables are owned by the Plaintiff, not C and D, since the said corporeal movables are owned by the Plaintiff, not C and D, the compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables, i.e., a lavating air conditioners (EL) No. 4, 5, 1, 6, 1, 7, 1, 11, 11, 12, 1, 14, 1, and 14.

B. Determination 1) In the lawsuit of demurrer against a third party, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the Plaintiff had the right to enforce the enforcement, i.e., the ownership of the goods subject to compulsory execution, and that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff. (2) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the Plaintiff purchased on November 2, 2014, one of the kimchi air conditioners (EL) and one of the two documents (EL) under his/her own name, and the Plaintiff changed the Internet services, etc. used at the place of residence of this case into his/her own name between the Plaintiff and the LG plpller around August 2016.

3. However, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the aforementioned evidence and Gap evidence No. 3’s overall purport, the aforementioned facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the corporeal movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the instant corporeal movables together with each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet.