1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is a company that engages in ethyl pipes and related parts manufacturing business. The Plaintiff is the representative director of E, a company that transacted with D, and the Defendant is a company that engages in air transportation agency business, maritime transportation business, etc.

B. Around October 23, 2015, the Defendant had a claim for transportation charges of KRW 210,245,126 against D (D was the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure at that time; D’s claim was confirmed as the Defendant’s report on the completion of rehabilitation security rights). The Defendant exercised a commercial lien on the request for storage of the instant corporeal movables included in D’s corporeal movables.

C. On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) received a ruling of provisional seizure of corporeal movables as the Busan District Court 2016Kadan51395 on the instant corporeal movables, including the instant corporeal movables, and conducted provisional seizure on May 26, 2016. On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff and E (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) received a favorable judgment against D on September 28, 2016, by filing a lawsuit against D for the claim for the payment of goods as prescribed by the Busan District Court 2016Kahap4663, which became final and conclusive.

Accordingly, on July 12, 2016, the Defendant filed a suit with the Plaintiff, etc. against the Plaintiff, etc. to the effect that the said compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables, etc., for which he/she is exercising the right of retention, ought to be denied. The Ulsan District Court 2016Gahap2253 filed a counterclaim seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the Defendant’s commercial lien.

Therefore, the above court dismissed the counterclaim by the plaintiff et al. on the ground that there is no interest in confirmation, and the defendant's commercial lien on the corporeal movables of this case exists legitimate existence. Thus, the defendant winning judgment in favor of the defendant that compulsory execution based on the claim for the price of goods by the plaintiff et al. should not be denied (hereinafter "the judgment in a prior suit" and "the judgment in a prior suit"), and the above judgment shall thereafter file an appeal.