1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of litigation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court stating that “the Intervenor shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 266,949,998 and the delay damages therefrom to the Defendant,” and the said payment order became final and conclusive on January 20, 2015.”

B. Based on the executory exemplification of the instant payment order, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of the movables indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant movables”), and the enforcement officer of the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branched the instant movables as the above court 2015No3765 on November 19, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2 and 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant movable property is not owned by the Intervenor, but owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s above compulsory execution against the instant movable property ought to be denied.

B. The lawsuit of demurrer by a third party on the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of the lawsuit in case where a third party, who holds ownership or right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter of compulsory execution, infringes on his/her right and seeks the exclusion of enforcement on compulsory execution that is practically being carried out. Thus, in case where a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is filed after the completion of the pertinent compulsory execution or a compulsory execution that existed at the time when the lawsuit of objection by a third party is filed is pending in the lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da37176, Nov. 22, 1996). On withdrawal of a request for auction, the effect of the seizure becomes extinct and the auction procedure is naturally effective.