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

On August 31, 2017, the Defendant executed a compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”) to seize each movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) in the E, which was located in Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun based on the original executory payment order issued by the Seogu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) No. 2015Ka712, and Seogu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) No. 2015Ka713.

2. On the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the execution of the seizure of this case should not be allowed, as the ownership of the instant goods is against the Fmedical Life Cooperatives, the president of which is the Plaintiff.

Article 48(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that "a third party who claims that he/she has ownership over the subject matter of compulsory execution, or who claims that he/she has a right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the subject matter, may bring an action of demurrer against the creditor against the third party." The plaintiff's assertion is apparent in itself to seek the exclusion of the execution of the seizure of this case on the premise that the ownership of the subject matter of this case belongs to the Fmedical Life Cooperatives, not the himself/herself, but the F Medical Life Cooperatives, the owner of the subject matter of this case, can seek the exclusion of the execution of the seizure of this case by the lawsuit of demurrer against the third party. Thus, unless there is any assertion or proof that the plaintiff has a right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the subject matter, the plaintiff's above assertion

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.