1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court No. 2015da673615, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables possessed by B in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju District Court No. 2016Da33777 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On September 22, 2016, upon the Defendant’s above application, the enforcement officer affiliated with the Gwangju District Court seized each movable property indicated in the attached list possessed by B from the instant real property.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion B is the Plaintiff’s father, who is residing in the instant real estate together with the Plaintiff. Since each of the movables listed in the separate sheet attached by the Defendant, listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 (hereinafter “instant movables”), among each of the movables listed in the separate sheet attached by the Defendant, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the instant movables ought to be denied.

3. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the subject matter of compulsory execution is owned by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit of demurrer against the third party. The images of No. 2-1 through No. 6 are insufficient to recognize that the subject matter of this case is owned by the Plaintiff (the images of No. 2-1 through No. 6 are merely the standard strawer attached to the parts of the subject matter of this case). There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, most of the movable property of this case is a house used for the residential life of a family or a person living together, and it conforms to the empirical rule to presume B as jointly-owned property owned by the Plaintiff as the basis of living the real property of this case.

Therefore, compulsory execution against the Defendant’s movable property of this case is lawful.

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