2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On July 16, 2012, Plaintiffs and E leased a building for factory sites and ground factories in the Gyeongbuk-gun (hereinafter “instant factory”) located in D, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 5,500,000 (including value-added tax) and the lease period of KRW 5,50,000, July 15, 2015.

B. On August 13, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of the instant payment order issued by the Daegu District Court 2015 tea6573 case, the Defendant executed the attachment of corporeal movables by the Daegu District Court Branch 2015No1353 on August 13, 2015 as to the two headings listed in the separate sheet established in the instant factory (hereinafter “the instant headings”).

(hereinafter “instant attachment enforcement”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that since they acquired the ownership of the instant tea through a sales contract with D prior to the execution of the attachment of this case, the Defendant, a creditor of D, should not be subject to the execution of attachment.

B. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement in respect of compulsory execution that infringes upon a third party’s ownership or right to restrain transfer or possession of the subject matter of enforcement.

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the ground of objection in the lawsuit of a third party, that is, the articles subject to compulsory execution, are owned by the plaintiff or are entitled to prevent transfer or delivery to the plaintiff.

Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, examining whether the plaintiffs purchased the instant scrap from D, the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the results of replies to the order to submit financial transactions to the head of Seogu Tax Office and the purport of the whole pleadings, each of the documents Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9, as shown in the plaintiffs' assertion, are written.