1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant filed an application for seizure of non-party B’s movable property indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant movable property”) based on the executory order of the Seoul Central District Court No. 2016 tea33505, which was executed by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2016, and accordingly, the execution officer of the Incheon District Court may recognize the fact that the execution officer of the instant movable property was executed by the Incheon District Court No. 2016, Dec. 21, 2016.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is a lawsuit seeking an objection against compulsory execution that is practically underway by infringing on ownership or right of a third party against the object of compulsory execution, and thus, it is unlawful as there is no benefit of the lawsuit in the case where compulsory execution, which was filed by a third party after the completion of the pertinent compulsory execution, or where compulsory execution, which existed at the time when the pertinent lawsuit was filed by a third party, is in progress (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da37176, Nov. 22, 1996). If a request for auction is withdrawn, the effect of seizure is extinguished and the auction procedure is terminated naturally (see, e.g., Article 93(1) of the Civil Execution Act). However, even if a request for compulsory execution was withdrawn during the course of the lawsuit, there is no benefit of the lawsuit in the case where a third party’s lawsuit was withdrawn during the course of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da207973, Jun. 9, 2016).

If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.