1. On the basis of the original copy of the payment order (No. 2018j535) rendered by the Suwon District Court for D Co., Ltd., the Defendant is based on the original copy of the payment order.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 13, 2018, the Defendant applied for a payment order against D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) seeking the payment of goods under the Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and the payment order was issued to the Defendant that “the Nonindicted Company would pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 105,107,750 and the delay damages therefrom,” and the said payment order was finalized on May 5, 2018.

B. On July 6, 2018, the Defendant was determined to seize corporeal movables located in the non-party company’s safe factory Fac, C, and Ddong factories, and the execution officer affiliated with the Suwon District Court on the attached seizure list (hereinafter “each of the instant corporeal movables”) completed the seizure execution of the corporeal movables listed in the attached seizure list (hereinafter “each of the instant corporeal movables”), according to the sequences Nos. 1 through 5.

C. The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on August 7, 2018 by asserting that the corporeal movables in paragraphs 1 and 5 of the instant case are owned by Plaintiff B, and that the corporeal movables in paragraphs 2-4 and 6 of the instant case were owned by Plaintiff A. On the same day, the Plaintiffs filed an application for a stay of compulsory execution seeking a suspension of compulsory execution against each of the instant corporeal movables by the time the instant judgment is rendered, which was rendered by the Suwon District Court Decision 2018Kadan1040, Suwon District Court Decision 2018. The instant court received the application for a suspension of compulsory execution on August 13, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. Since the corporeal movables in paragraphs 1 and 5 of the plaintiffs' assertion are owned by the plaintiff B, 2-4, and 6, corporeal movables in the plaintiff A, the execution of this case based on the original copy of the payment order against the non-party company should be denied.

B. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party of the first legal doctrine is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by raising an objection against compulsory execution that infringes upon a third party’s ownership or right to restrain transfer or transfer of the subject matter of enforcement.

In an action of demurrer by a third party.