2. On September 7, 2015, this Court

A. On July 3, 2015, the lower court rendered a decision that “The enforcement cost to be repaid by the Defendant to the Defendant in respect of the real estate delivery case No. 2015No. 430 between the Defendant and the Gwangju District Court shall be KRW 3,472,050” (hereinafter “instant enforcement cost determination”) that “The enforcement cost to be reimbursed by the Defendant in respect of the real estate delivery case between the Defendant and the Defendant” was determined (hereinafter “instant enforcement cost determination”).

B. On August 13, 2015, based on the determination of the instant execution cost, the Defendant carried out a compulsory execution on the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) in the first floor Fcarlet of the E Building (hereinafter “C store”) on August 13, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff is the husband of C, and the building E, in the net city where C stores are located, is the building owned by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the instant corporeal movables asserted by the parties, the plaintiff asserts that it is improper for the defendant to enforce compulsory execution against C as the title of execution against C, and on the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff and C are entitled to enforce compulsory execution against C as the title of execution against C in order to avoid compulsory execution due to the marital relation between the plaintiff and C as if they were owned by the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. First, we examine the small freezing of the instant corporeal movables (attached Table 6).

1) The Plaintiff asserts that, as a limited partnership company’s future liquor, a liquor company is a limited partnership company’s future liquor, a limited partnership company’s future liquor, the above compulsory execution should not be permitted. (2) However, even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the small freezing is merely a possession of future liquor of the limited partnership company, and the Plaintiff is entitled to prevent transfer or delivery of the small freezing.