1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff filed a motion to refuse compulsory execution concerning the instant deposit, which was conducted based on a written decision in lieu of executory conciliation of the instant case, such as return of unjust enrichment (2012da78441) with the Seoul Central District Court 2013 money107da747 (Dada78441). Therefore, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio

A lawsuit of demurrer against a claim is unlawful as a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim seeking the exclusion of general executory power of executive titles and seeking the exclusion of specific executory acts of individual enforcement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 71Da1008, Dec. 28, 1971). The Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful, seeking the exclusion of a collection order and seizure of the instant deposit, which was actually conducted as one of the individual enforcement acts based on the above written decision.

2. If so, we decide to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.