1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. In full view of the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 18 as well as the entire arguments, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of the movable property of this case based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Seoul Southern District Court 2015Kahap102331 against the non-party, Seoul Southern District Court 2015Kahap102331, and upon the above application, the execution officer of this court attached the movable property of this case as the court 2016No364 on March 2, 2016.

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the movables attached to the defendant's defense prior to the merits of this case were owned by the plaintiffs and sought the rejection of the above compulsory execution. The defendant withdrawn the above compulsory execution application, and thus the lawsuit of this case is no longer beneficial to the plaintiff.

The lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is unlawful in cases where a third party, who has ownership or right to prevent transfer or transfer of the object of compulsory execution, has asserted an objection against the compulsory execution that is practically being carried out by infringing on such right, and seek the exclusion of enforcement. Thus, in cases where a lawsuit by a third party is filed after the compulsory execution concerned is completed, or compulsory execution that existed at the time when the lawsuit by a third party is filed, is terminated while the lawsuit by a third party is pending, there is no interest in the lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da37176, Nov. 22, 1996). If a request for auction is withdrawn, the effect of the seizure is extinguished and the auction procedure is terminated naturally (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da37176, Nov. 22, 1996). Therefore, even in cases where a request for auction was withdrawn during the course of a lawsuit filed by

However, in full view of the entries and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence No. 20, the fact that the Defendant’s withdrawal of the seizure execution (this Court No. 2016No. 364) of the movable property of this case on October 13, 2016 while the instant lawsuit is pending is recognized that the said compulsory execution against which the Plaintiffs sought refusal of the execution.