1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 2016, the Defendant acquired ownership of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building No. 01 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at a successful bid during the compulsory auction procedure. The Defendant requested C to issue an order to deliver the instant real estate on December 23, 2016 and received an order to deliver the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant order”).

(Seoul Western District Court D). (b)

On March 6, 2017, based on the India Order, the delivery execution of the instant real estate was completed. During that process, each of the movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant movables”) on the instant real estate was taken to be preserved.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the movable property of this case was owned by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant enforced compulsory execution against C based on the delivery order of this case.

Therefore, compulsory execution with respect to the movable property of this case based on the delivery order of this case should be rejected.

3. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party regarding the legitimacy of a lawsuit of this case is a lawsuit of demurrer against a third party, who has ownership or a right to prevent transfer or transfer of an object of compulsory execution, and is practically underway, and seek the exclusion of enforcement.

The object of the delivery order of this case is only the real estate of this case, and the corporeal movables in the real estate of this case are not the object.

Therefore, the custody measures taken with respect to part of the instant movable property in the course of delivery and execution of the instant movable property are not an execution for the Plaintiff, and the owner of the instant movable property cannot bring an objection against the third party.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

4. Conclusion, the instant lawsuit is filed.