1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the underlying facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. As to the first argument, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant by the Republic of Korea, stating that “The Defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust with respect to the instant land” is not implemented by the Defendant even though the judgment was rendered and the judgment became final and conclusive around November 15, 2012. As such, the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right cannot be deemed justifiable, and thus, compulsory execution based on the instant judgment should not be denied. (2) Article 44(1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Act provides that, in order to raise an objection to a claim finalized by a judgment, the obligor shall file a lawsuit of objection with the court of the first instance regarding the claim in the judgment, and the objection shall be subsequent to the conclusion of pleadings (in the case of a judgment without holding any pleadings, subsequent to the judgment)

Therefore, the grounds for the objection cannot be used as the grounds for the objection of a claim, which occurred prior to the conclusion of pleadings. The above grounds alleged by the Plaintiff arose prior to December 12, 2013, which is the date of the closing of pleadings in the case 2012Na5239. Thus, the legitimate grounds for the objection of a claim cannot be the grounds for the objection of a claim.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. 1) As to the second argument, the Plaintiff paid unjust enrichment against the Defendant upon the deposit for repayment of the instant case. As such, the Plaintiff removed from the instant building, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant judgment should not be permitted. 2) Even if a person who owns a building without authority on the land owned by another person does not actually use or benefit from the building, barring any special circumstance, by itself.