1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On November 9, 2017, this Court rendered a request for a stay of compulsory execution against 2017 Chicago340.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff, Nonparty C, D, E, F, G, H, and I for the determination of the amount of litigation costs.

In addition, by the Incheon District Court Decision 2015Kaob854 on March 3, 2016, the amount of litigation costs that the respondent (appointed party, the plaintiff of this case, the plaintiff of this case), and the designated party (C, D, E, F, G, H, and I) are to be reimbursed to the applicant (the defendant of this case), was determined by the Supreme Court Decision 2013Da79275, 2015Na39 and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da460 Decided March 3, 2016, the amount of litigation costs that the designated party is to be reimbursed to the applicant (the defendant of this case) was to be determined as KRW 435,453, the appointed party (C, D, E, F, G, H, 377,753, and I 270,723 won.

B. On October 26, 2017, the Defendant issued a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant seizure”) with respect to each movable property listed in the Attachment List (hereinafter “instant movable property”) as the title of the judgment on the determination of litigation cost amounting to the Incheon District Court 2015Kao854, Incheon District Court 2017.

C. The attachment report of this case states that the claimed amount of KRW 2,972,694, and the Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon in the place of enforcement, and the second floor.

The Selected E is the Plaintiff’s spouse, the Selection C is the Plaintiff’s son, the Selection D is the Plaintiff’s son, the Selection F, G, and I are the Plaintiff’s grandchildren, and all addresses are the Incheon Jung-gu J.

In addition, the address of the selected person H is also J of Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, which is the same address as the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant movable property was owned by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant, including the part on the designated parties other than the Plaintiff, was subject to attachment execution.

Therefore, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to seize the instant movable property based on the part of the Appointor C, D, E, F, G, H, and I among the authentic copies of the decision of Incheon District Court 2015Kaob854.

B. The plaintiff and the designated parties of the defendant reside together with their family members of this case.