1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s enforcement power against the Diplomatic Association of the Suwon District Court No. 2015Kao-83.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 29, 2014, the Defendant leased 2 floors of the Gyeonggi-do Pyeongtaek-si Erein reinforced concrete building to the Cridge (former modification: Diplomatic Association) as the representative of the Plaintiff, and Cridge used the said building as a preliminary dividend.

B. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the C Educational Association for the registration of the said building (U.S. District Court Decision 2014dan16260), and the Defendant’s winning judgment became final and conclusive on March 10, 2015.

The defendant sought reimbursement of the above costs of lawsuit against C Educational Meeting, received the same court decision 2015Kama82, and executed seizure of the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the articles of this case") based on the above decision.

C. Meanwhile, on December 1, 2014, Cridge filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Defendant (the same court 2014Da180444) due to the lessor’s nonperformance of obligation, which was the lessor, and on April 4, 2015, the judgment of losing Cridge became final and conclusive.

The Defendant sought reimbursement of the above litigation costs against the C Educational Meeting, received the same court decision 2015Kao 83, and agreed on October 6, 2015, upon which C Educational Meeting did not attend the said decision, to keep the said items in the C Educational Meeting while executing seizure.

C Educational Association was dissolved on March 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 3 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the subject matter owned by the Plaintiff, and compulsory execution based on the original copy of the final decision of litigation costs with executory power over the Defendant Cridge is unreasonable.

In addition, in related cases, the defendant decided to release the seizure of the article of this case.

B. The defendant's argument is that the goods of this case are owned by the C church since they were used by the C church within the C church, and the plaintiff in related cases.