All part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the non-permission of compulsory execution shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) filed an application for a real estate transfer order (U.S.D) with respect to Suwon F apartment G (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the Plaintiff as the respondent, and received the decision of acceptance on October 29, 2018.

B. Defendant C filed an application for a real estate delivery order (U.S. District Court E) with respect to the instant apartment with H and I as the respondent, and received the decision of acceptance on December 11, 2018.

C. On December 3, 2018, the Suwon District Court’s enforcement council, delegated by Defendant C with respect to the delivery order of real estate D, issued a written advance notice of compulsory execution regarding the instant apartment to the Plaintiff. On December 27, 2018, the Suwon District Court issued a written advance notice of compulsory execution on the instant apartment to the Plaintiff. On December 27, 2018, upon delegation by Defendant C, notified the Plaintiff, who is the internal director of H, a corporation H, to voluntarily deliver the instant apartment.

On February 18, 2019, Defendant B performed a compulsory execution on the apartment of this case under the delegation of Defendant C with regard to the Suwon District Court D's order to deliver real estate, and in the process, 29 parts of the first half of the apartment of this case owned by the Plaintiff were laid on the apartment corridor of this case, and the dog owned by the Plaintiff was in custody by Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 1 through 5, the purport of whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a request for non-permission of compulsory execution

A. There is no benefit to seek denial of compulsory execution by filing an objection against a claim for an order to deliver D/D real estate with the Suwon District Court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82043, May 29, 2014). Since the enforcement officer entrusted by Defendant C (Defendant B) according to the Suwon District Court D/D real estate delivery order against the Plaintiff completed compulsory execution, the above fact is the same as seen earlier.