1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2018 Chicago30296, May 2018

1. Basic facts

A. On November 8, 2016, the Defendant, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Kadan811536, issued a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession (hereinafter “decision on the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession”) against Nonparty C, D, etc. as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant loan”). On November 15, 2016, the enforcement officer E belonging to the Seoul Central District Court, who was delegated by the Defendant, executed the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession against Nonparty C and D on November 15, 2016.

B. After that, around January 13, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C and C, the owner of the instant loan, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Da501049, seeking delivery of the instant loan, and the said court rendered a judgment of delivery of the provisional execution declaration (hereinafter “instant judgment”) on August 16, 2017.

C. On August 28, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Defendant for the delivery execution of the instant loan as the executory exemplification of the instant judgment, and the enforcement officer F, Sept. 14, 2017, did not execute the instant loan against the Plaintiff Company on the ground that the Plaintiff Company entered into an agreement with C on April 22, 2014, and agreed that it occupied the instant loan.

Accordingly, on September 22, 2017, the Defendant applied for grant of succession execution clause on the ground that the possession of the Plaintiff Company was handed over from C after the decision on the provisional disposition prohibiting transfer of possession of the instant case, and the agreement on the assertion was merely a false content, and on September 27, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court’s judicial assistant granted the succeeding execution clause to the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “instant succeeding execution clause”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C is, around April 16, 2014, until the claim for construction price is settled between the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiff Company on April 22, 2014 immediately after the Defendant acquired possession of the loan of this case from the Defendant.