1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

As the Plaintiff owned the instant machinery, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution against the instant machinery by the Defendant on April 19, 2016, based on the executory exemplification of the payment order issued by the Daegu District Court 2015 tea 15.15649 against B, Inc., is not permissible.

The lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is unlawful in cases where a third party, who has ownership or right to prevent transfer or transfer of the object of compulsory execution, has asserted an objection against the compulsory execution that is practically being carried out by infringing on such right, and seek the exclusion of enforcement. Thus, in cases where a lawsuit by a third party is filed after the compulsory execution concerned is completed, or compulsory execution that existed at the time when the lawsuit by a third party is filed, is terminated while the lawsuit by a third party is pending, there is no interest in the lawsuit.

(2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 14, the Defendant filed an application for seizure and auction of the instant machinery with the Daegu District Court Decision 2016No395, Dec. 13, 2016; and the fact that the instant machinery was sold at the above auction procedure on December 13, 2016, and the payment price and dividends were completed (the dividend protocol was not prepared, but all dividends excluding the commission fee was deposited with the Defendant’s account on December 13, 2016). Accordingly, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings No. 14, the Daegu District Court Decision 2015No. 2016, Dec. 14, 2015 that the instant machinery was deposited at the above auction procedure and completed the payment and dividends (the dividend was deposited with the Defendant’s account on December 13, 2016).

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of the lawsuit, since the compulsory execution is terminated while the lawsuit is pending.

2. Thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner.