2. On August 12, 2014, this Court rendered an application for the suspension of compulsory execution against this Court.

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the instant apartment owned by the said company as a creditor under the Daegu District Court Decision 2012Gaso80430 decided on signal Construction Co., Ltd.

However, in around 197, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with respect to the signal Construction Co., Ltd. and the apartment of this case with a sale price of KRW 73.2 million, and paid 37 million among them, and did not pay the remainder due to the bankruptcy of the above company, etc., and resided in the above apartment.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not make a registration of transfer of ownership, it is entitled to possess and use the apartment of this case under the above sales contract, and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to be denied the above compulsory execution against the above apartment of this case.

B. 1) A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party against the compulsory execution under Article 48 of the Civil Execution Act is to be brought against the execution obligee, by asserting that a third party has a right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the ownership or other subject matter of the execution already commenced, and thus seeking the exclusion of the execution against the subject matter of the execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da7409, May 10, 2007). The ground for objection by a third party is not limited to ownership, but is sufficient if the subject matter of the execution is a right to prevent transfer or delivery of the subject matter of the execution. If the subject matter of the execution is not owned by the execution obligor, a third party who has a right to seek the return of the subject matter of the execution against the execution obligor under a contractual relationship between the execution obligor and the execution obligor has a benefit in preventing transfer or delivery of the subject matter of the execution, and such third party’s claim may also become a ground for objection against the execution obligee’s claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da6562, Jun.