1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. This Court rendered October 26, 2016 with respect to cases of suspension of compulsory execution of 2016 Chicago10.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant on August 13, 2009 set forth in attached Table 1. A, which was owned by F, the father of the plaintiff at the voluntary auction procedure for the Sung-gu District Court's Sung-dong E auction procedure.

B. Purchasing each land listed in the port (hereinafter “instant land”) and completing the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name on August 28, 2009.

B. The Defendant, as the owner of saf trees planted on the instant land, filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against F with F, claiming that F is the legal superficies holder (Seoul District Court Decision 2009Gadan2660), but was rendered a judgment against F on May 26, 2010 on the ground that “C, other than F, occupies the instant land by planting the instant saf trees,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 18, 2010.

C. Accordingly, on November 3, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C seeking the transfer of land in this case and the collection, etc. of dead trees planted on the ground thereof (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2010Da1083), and received a judgment of winning the entire case on November 3, 2010, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 20, 2010, and the Defendant received a decision of substitute execution on April 14, 201 (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch) with respect to the removal of dead trees.

On July 8, 2016, the Defendant applied for the advance payment of alternative execution cost against C, and accordingly, applied for the advance payment of KRW 114,191,00 on July 8, 2016 (hereinafter “C”) to the Defendant. Based on the decision, the Defendant enforced compulsory execution on the goods listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant company”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was entitled to receive from C the right to cultivate the fruit trees planted on the instant land from around 2011, and thus, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant apology located on the instant fruit trees is the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to enforce compulsory execution against the instant apology with the claim against C.

3. Determination: