1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The Seo-gu District Court of Daejeon applied for the suspension of compulsory execution.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 6, 2008, the Defendant filed an order for payment order (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2008Guj191, the Seosan Branch Court of the Daejeon District Court) against C to seek the payment of the loan, and on May 6, 2008, issued an order with the above court that “C shall pay KRW 5 million to the Defendant and its delay damages.”

The above payment order was finalized on May 23, 2008.

B. On December 10, 2015, the Defendant seized, based on the original copy of the above payment order, the movables indicated in the attached list, E, E, which are E, located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant movables”).

C. The Plaintiff is C’s children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff F and its collection were originally owned by G, the Plaintiff’s original type of G. The Plaintiff acquired the entirety of F’s business rights, including the instant goods, from G on September 1, 2014, KRW 35 million in premium, KRW 15 million in deposit, and operated by changing its trade name to E.

From November 1, 2014, the Plaintiff settled the profit of the Plaintiff’s operation of E and paid KRW 50,000 to G by depositing KRW 30,000 per day from November 1, 201 to the date.

Therefore, since the article of this case is owned by the plaintiff, the defendant cannot enforce the execution against the article of this case based on the executive title C.

Nevertheless, the Defendant seized the instant goods, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit by a third party and deposited KRW 1.2 million, and the Defendant is subject to a decision of the suspension of compulsory execution, and the Defendant would also withdraw the seizure if the said third party withdraws the said deposit to himself/herself. As such, the Plaintiff accepted it and the Plaintiff accepted it and ordered G to deposit KRW 1.3 million to the Defendant, and withdrawn the said third party’s lawsuit, but the Defendant did not withdraw the seizure.

B. Defendant E is actually the case.