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

A. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the building materials of this case owned by B and completed its certification. The Defendant attached the instant building materials in accordance with the provisional attachment order against B on June 5, 2017.

However, since the Plaintiff did not have any obligation against the Defendant, compulsory execution against the construction material of this case is unfair, and accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to deny such compulsory execution as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building material, and the transfer of movable property is effective as a matter of principle, except when the transferee already occupied the movable (see Article 188(1) of the Civil Act). Even if all the evidence presented by the Plaintiff were integrated, the Plaintiff was transferred the instant building material from B before compulsory execution against the instant building material.

It is insufficient to recognize that the building materials of this case have already been occupied.

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, provisional seizure on the building material of this case is recognized as being executed on June 5, 2017, and it is also insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid the purchase price for the building material of this case to Eul prior to the execution of provisional seizure, even if all the evidences submitted by the plaintiff were integrated.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review as to the remaining points.

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