1. The part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the decision to commence compulsory auction shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's request.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 9, 2014, the judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 60,000,000 won and interest rate of 20% per annum from April 10, 2014 to the date of full payment” filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment”) was rendered, and the instant judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. According to the instant judgment, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate to Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch C for a compulsory auction of real estate on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, owned by the Plaintiff, and received the decision of compulsory auction on June 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, Gap's evidence No. 2, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's decision on the legitimacy of the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking the revocation of the compulsory execution decision based on the judgment in this case and sought the revocation of the above compulsory execution decision. Thus, this part of the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above compulsory execution decision is lawful, and the lawsuit of objection as to the claim can be revoked by submitting the original judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which excluded the above executory power, to the executive agency, and the revocation of the individual execution disposition can be revoked by submitting the original judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which has already been executed, to the executive agency, and the claim for the exclusion of the executory power itself and the claim for the exclusion of the individual execution act cannot be established. Thus, the lawsuit of objection seeking the exclusion of the executory power itself is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da1008, Dec. 28, 1971). This part of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

3. The parties' assertion

A. On February 5, 2015, after the judgment of this case, the Defendant is in the Sungnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F where ownership transfer registration is made between the Plaintiff’s husband D and the Plaintiff’s husband E.