1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On May 29, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of unjust enrichment against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Da5035144, and received a favorable judgment from the above court.

After the Defendant received an execution clause on the original copy of the above judgment, on July 20, 2018, the Defendant carried out a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) on the corporeal movables listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, each of the statements Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, as the instant lawsuit, filed a motion for non-permission of compulsory execution of the instant case by asserting that the instant corporeal movables are not owned by C, but owned by the Plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of lawsuit.

A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is unlawful in cases where a third party, who has ownership or a right to prevent transfer or delivery of an object of compulsory execution, raises an objection against compulsory execution that is practically being carried out by infringing on such ownership or right, and seeks the exclusion of enforcement. Thus, in cases where a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is filed after the completion of compulsory execution in question, or compulsory execution that existed at the time of filing a lawsuit by a third party is terminated during the proceeding of a lawsuit by a third

(1) In the instant case, the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that there is no benefit in the lawsuit, as it is alleged that the instant compulsory execution had been completed by means of sale and distribution on October 1, 2018, when adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the written evidence No. 3 of this case. As such, the instant lawsuit is seeking the exclusion of compulsory execution already completed, and there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

3. According to the conclusion, the instant lawsuit is dismissed as unlawful.