1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In fact, the Defendant received the Busan District Court 2015No. 11254 of Busan District Court’s 2015Hu3417 with the title of execution to issue a final payment order against B, which became final and conclusive. On June 23, 2015, the execution court issued a ruling of seizure of corporeal movables. On June 23, 2015, the execution court executed seizure of the movables listed in the attachment list (hereinafter “instant movables”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant movable property is owned by the Plaintiff, while B was residing together with the Plaintiff, and is not the owner of the instant movable property, and compulsory execution against the instant movable property is not permissible.

B. We examine the judgment, the third party's lawsuit of objection is sought to exclude the third party's lawsuit by asserting the ownership and other rights to prevent the transfer or delivery of the object of execution already commenced. The burden of proving the grounds for objection, that is, the burden of proving whether the plaintiff has the right to ownership and other rights to the object. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff, even if considering all the evidence submitted to this court.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.