2. On June 23, 2016, this Court has applied for a stay of compulsory execution by this Court.

A. On October 20, 2015, based on the executory payment order (No. 2012 tea4282), the Defendant seized the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant articles”) on October 20, 2015, and purchased the said articles at KRW 1 million during the said compulsory sale procedure on November 17, 2015.

B. On November 17, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant goods to D, and D sold the said goods to the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. The Plaintiff, while owning the instant goods, allowed C to use the said goods, and the Defendant again seized the said goods based on the payment order on June 3, 2016.

Since the instant articles are owned by the Plaintiff, not C, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the said articles on June 3, 2016 should be denied.

2. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the Defendant is found to have withdrawn a compulsory execution with respect to Samsung (Pepactt), knick, doorets, and table table that overlap with the instant articles among the seized articles of June 3, 2016. As a result, the Plaintiff’s refusal of compulsory execution in this case and the seized articles of June 3, 2016 are deemed to have no overlapping objects.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.