The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that compulsory execution, including provisional attachment execution, should not be permitted since each of the goods listed in the attached list -1, -2, -3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant goods”) is not owned by D Co., Ltd., F, and H, and is owned by the Plaintiff and K Representative.

A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is unlawful in cases where a third party, who has ownership or a right to prevent transfer or delivery of the object of compulsory execution, raises an objection against compulsory execution that is practically being carried out by infringing on such ownership or right, and seeks to exclude the execution thereof. Thus, in cases where a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is filed after the compulsory execution concerned is completed, or where compulsory execution that existed at the time when a lawsuit of objection by a third party is filed, is terminated during the course of

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da37176 delivered on November 22, 1996, and Supreme Court Decision 96Da49049 delivered on October 10, 1997). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 6, Nos. 7, 7, 8, and 11 (including paper numbers), the movable auction procedure for the instant goods carried out incidental to the case for delivery execution of each real estate was terminated until April 29, 2020, and the proceeds from the sale of the instant goods were treated as execution expenses (including warehouse expenses for storage of the instant goods).

According to the above facts, the compulsory execution procedure for the instant goods is terminated, so the instant lawsuit has no interest in the lawsuit in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.