1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 10, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Cheongju District Court Decision B (hereinafter “B”) seeking the payment of overdue rent under the Cheongju District Court Decision 2016Gahap24058, and accepted the Defendant’s claim in full, and received a judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by B, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Accordingly, the defendant filed an application against B for the determination of the amount of litigation costs in the case No. 2016Gahap24058 with the Cheongju District Court Decision 2017Kama26, Cheongju District Court Decision 2017 decided Oct. 20, 2017 that B shall reimburse the defendant as KRW 3,519,934, and the above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

B. In addition, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B seeking the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent and the rent, etc. with the Gwangju District Court 2017Gahap3257, and received a partial winning judgment on February 14, 2018 (the part seeking restitution was partially dismissed, and the remainder including the part seeking monetary payment was completely cited). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On March 29, 2018, the Defendant executed the attachment execution of each of the items listed in the attached attachment list (to be leased from the Plaintiff) at the place of business (to be leased from the Plaintiff) located in the Cheongju District Court Decision 2017Kaba26 and the Gwangju District Court Decision 2017Kahap3257, the title of the enforcement of the judgment, with respect to each of the items listed in the attached attachment list (to be leased from the Plaintiff).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 3, Eul Nos. 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Article 11 of the Attached Table No. 11 of the allegation is an object purchased by the plaintiff and installed at the relevant place, and thus, it is unreasonable for the defendant to seize the above object by compulsory execution against B.

Therefore, compulsory execution against the above goods by the defendant should not be permitted.

B. The Plaintiff is to support his/her assertion.