1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The above court shall have regard to the case of application for suspension of compulsory execution in this Court 2017 Chicago237.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 3, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for alternative execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) with the Incheon District Court D with regard to the buildings indicated in the separate sheet based on the executory exemplification of the case, such as removal of buildings, etc. by the Incheon District Court 2015Gahap1372.

B. The Plaintiff occupies some of the buildings listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) and uses them as a training ground for hunting dogs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff legally occupies the building of this case by sub-leaseing the building of this case from C. Thus, the compulsory execution of this case under the premise that C occupies the building of this case shall not be permitted.

B. Determination 1) A lawsuit of demurrer against a third party is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by asserting an objection against a compulsory execution by a third party, such as ownership or possession right, against the subject matter of enforcement. If such third party files a lawsuit of demurrer against a third party as the plaintiff, the third party who becomes the plaintiff must not only assert that he/she has the right to prevent the transfer or transfer of the subject matter of execution, such as ownership, as a ground for objection, but also prove that he/she has the right to prevent the transfer or transfer of the subject matter of execution, such as ownership. 2) In addition, even if the plaintiff concluded a sublease contract of the building of this case with the third party who leased the building of this case from the defendant, such as the plaintiff's assertion, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant consented to the said sub-lease contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely an illegal occupant in relation to the Defendant, a lessor, as the former lessee without the lessor’s consent.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.