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

The plaintiff, who received the sales right from D, concluded a lease contract with E for the store of this case and possessed it. Thus, the defendant's compulsory execution against the store of this case should be denied.

A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is unlawful in cases where a third party, who has ownership or a right to prevent transfer or delivery of the object of compulsory execution, raises an objection against compulsory execution that is practically being carried out by infringing on such ownership or right, and seeks to exclude the execution thereof. Thus, in cases where a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is filed after the compulsory execution concerned is completed, or where compulsory execution that existed at the time when a lawsuit of objection by a third party is filed, is terminated during the course of

(2) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff who had already completed the delivery execution of the instant store on November 22, 1996 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da37176, Nov. 22, 1996). As long as compulsory execution against the instant store has already been completed, the instant lawsuit seeking the exclusion of the enforcement is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(On the other hand, in the Busan District Court case No. 2016ss. 201382, the plaintiff and the defendant left the store of this case and the decision in lieu of the conciliation that the plaintiff would not bring any lawsuit in connection with the lease of the store of this case was confirmed). Accordingly, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.