1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. Cases in which this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 3, 2013, from around October 1, 2013 to around October 201 of the same year, the Defendant filed an application with C for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 110 million with a loan from around KRW 10,000,000. Accordingly, C raised an objection against the Defendant and C, which led to the Daejeon District Court’s instant case of loans No. 2016 money142.

B. In this context, on June 13, 2016, the Defendant and C concluded mediation that “C shall pay KRW 110,000,000 to the Defendant, and shall pay KRW 30,000,000 each time until July 31, 2016 in two equal installments, and KRW 80,000,000 until December 31, 2016. If the payment of the above amount is delayed, the payment shall lose the benefit of time, and the remainder shall be paid to the Defendant on a lump sum, and the remainder shall be paid at a rate of 15% per annum from the day after the date of loss of the benefit of time to the day of full payment.”

(hereinafter “instant protocol of mediation”). C.

On May 23, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for enforcement of seizure of movable property with the Daejeon District Court (hereinafter “instant enforcement”). On May 23, 2018, the said enforcement officer executed compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) to seize poppy straws (hereinafter “instant poppy”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff of this case concluded an entrustment contract with the non-party C for the management of poppy, etc., and caused C to manage and raise the above poppy. The above poppy is owned by the plaintiffs, but the above poppy was illegal, and the compulsory execution of this case based on the premise that C was owned by C, and the defendant did not own the plaintiffs at the time of the compulsory execution of this case.

3. The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant poppy was owned by the Plaintiffs at the time of the instant compulsory execution, and in particular, it was specified as owned by the Plaintiffs at the time of the instant compulsory execution.