1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On June 21, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for a permit for auction of goods with an object under the jurisdiction of Suwon District Court 2013 non-conforming 7, Suwon District Court 2013 non-conforming 7, the Defendant filed an application for auction of goods stored in Pyeongtaek-si 305 (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) and filed an application for auction on June 21, 2013, with the enforcement officer affiliated with the said Pyeongtaek-si Housing Site under the jurisdiction of Pyeongtaek-si 2013No1282, Jun. 27, 2013, on the basis of the above decision.

B. After seizing the instant corporeal movables, the enforcement officer affiliated with the said Pyeongtaek Housing Site Board requested an appraiser to conduct an appraisal. The appraiser presented 370 million won based on the appraisal value, along with the opinion that “The instant corporeal relics were assessed as waste food in consideration of the form, phenomenon, annual formula, management status, and the adequate transaction price of the same and similar objects, market price, etc. In addition, the appraiser presented the opinion that “the present corporeal remains in need of re-verification at the time of the progress of the business of the office of the person who returned to the Republic of Korea, as well as the opinion that “the present corporeal remains in need of re-verification” in accordance with the presentation list.

C. On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff reported the purchase of KRW 120,6920,000 on the auction date, and became the highest bidder, and paid the full amount of the sale price on the same day, and received delivery of the instant corporeal movables.

The Plaintiff asserted that, on September 6, 2013, two of the 26 containers in which the instant corporeal movables were kept in custody, most of the contents were left in water instead of waste oil, and that the attachment decision on the instant corporeal movables, which entirely differ from the content of the attachment report, was null and void due to significant and apparent defects, and thus, there is a defect in the enforcement procedure in the enforcement officer’s disposition on the instant corporeal movables. Accordingly, the enforcement officer’s revocation of compulsory execution and the proceeds from sale.