1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the entire business regarding D’s “D” operated by C from C, and received the goods listed in attached Table 5.

B. The Plaintiff purchased and received the goods listed in attached Tables 1 through 4 from February 2013 to June 2014.

C. On the other hand, on September 2, 2014, the Defendant attached the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant articles”) as the District Court No. 2014No5539, Jun. 18, 2014, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered on June 18, 2014 between the Defendant and C, which was based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered on June 18, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case to deny compulsory execution against the instant goods by the Defendant on the ground that the instant goods are owned by the Plaintiff, and ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is a lawsuit seeking an objection against a compulsory execution that is practically being carried out by a third party who infringes on the ownership or right to restrain transfer or transfer of the object of compulsory execution. Thus, in a case where a lawsuit by a third party is filed after the compulsory execution concerned is terminated, or compulsory execution that existed at the time when a lawsuit by a third party is filed, is terminated while the lawsuit by a third party is pending (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da49049, Oct. 10, 1997). In full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement in evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the execution was cancelled by withdrawing an application for compulsory execution against the object of this case on Oct. 20, 2014, which is the date the defendant filed the lawsuit in this case, and since the compulsory execution procedure seeking the rejection was already completed, the compulsory execution procedure for the plaintiff had already been completed.