1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant, based on the facts, received a decision of performance recommendation as to the claim of KRW 2.2 million against C by the Seoul Southern District Court 2014Daso134215, which became final and conclusive, as the enforcement title, the Seoul Southern District Court 2014Da5871, Seoul Southern District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Southern District Court”), and the fact that the attachment execution was conducted on December 30, 2014 with respect to the goods indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant instant instant instant unused, etc.”) does not conflict between the parties.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case, etc. is a thing owned by the Plaintiff to be leased to C, compulsory execution against the said licensing, etc. is not allowed.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff leased the instant tea, etc. to C solely with the respective descriptions of subparagraphs 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant tea, etc. was owned by the Plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.