1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Although the Plaintiff’s movable property indicated in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “instant movable property”) is owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, without any grounds, conducted compulsory execution as to the instant movable property based on the executory decision of a real estate delivery order as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”).

Therefore, the compulsory execution of this case should not be permitted.

2. On the basis of the determination as to this safety defense, the lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit in case where a third party, who has the right to prevent ownership, transfer or transfer of the object of compulsory execution, infringes on his/her right and seeks an exclusion from the execution of compulsory execution, which is practically underway. Thus, in case where a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is filed after the completion of the pertinent compulsory execution, or where a compulsory execution, which existed at the time of filing of a lawsuit of demurrer by a third

It is the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da49049, Oct. 10, 1997). Since there is no dispute between the parties as to the termination of July 29, 2015, the case of this case seeking the refusal of its execution, which is the compulsory execution of this case, since there is no benefit of lawsuit, and thus is unlawful.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is justified.

3. In conclusion, we decide to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.