1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On January 5, 2017, this Court has applied for a stay of compulsory execution by this Court.

1. Under the underlying facts, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction against C (hereinafter “instant machinery”) of the Seoul Eastern District Court 2016Kadan22524 on the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Seoul Eastern District Court 2016Kadan2524, and the execution officer affiliated with this court of this Court attached the instant machinery in the presence of the Plaintiff, who is the representative director C in the wife population D on November 17, 2016 (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) may be recognized if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement as stated in the evidence No. 6.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff acquired ownership by acquiring the instant machinery from C, compulsory execution against the instant machinery by the defendant should be denied.

The transfer of real rights to movable property takes effect upon delivery of the movable property (Article 188(1) of the Civil Act). Meanwhile, a third party’s lawsuit is seeking exclusion by asserting the right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the ownership or other subject matter of execution already commenced on the subject matter of execution. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection, i.e., the specific subject matter for which the Plaintiff claims that the right, such as ownership, is included in the subject matter of execution, and the burden of proof as to whether the subject matter of execution

According to these legal principles, according to Gap evidence No. 1, in the case of this case, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff acquired the machinery listed in the annexed table of machinery from C and E (the owner of 25% of the C’s shares), but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the machinery of this case is identical to each of the machinery listed in the annexed table of machinery that the plaintiff acquired.

Even if its identity is recognized, the entry of No. 1 in the statement of the evidence No. 1 reveals the overall purport of the pleadings.