1. Of the instant lawsuits, the instant lawsuit sought non-permission of compulsory execution against each of the movable properties in the sequence 3, 4, and 6 of the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 15, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C for a loan claim with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015 Gaz. 2013703, the Defendant was sentenced to “C shall pay to the Defendant 3,00,000 won and the amount calculated by applying each rate of 5% per annum from October 26, 2014 to September 3, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on February 12, 2016.

B. On October 29, 2020, the Defendant seized each of the tangible movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant movable property”) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and E (hereinafter “the instant apartment”), and attached one set of the tangible movable property in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant movable property”) and one set of the beds (2) and one set of cremation (3 pages) in accordance with the same list when referring to the individual tangible movable property.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence No. 2, each of the facts in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The movables Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of the Plaintiff’s assertion are the Plaintiff’s properties purchased in the case of seizure of tangible properties in Suwon District Court, the movables Nos. 3 and 4 of this case are temporarily kept by the Plaintiff at the request of the owner G. The movables Nos. 6 of this case, which are the place of seizure, shall be returned after the expiration of the lease term, as the lessor’s ownership of the apartment of this case, which is the place of seizure.

Therefore, compulsory execution against each of the instant movables by the Defendant is unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Of the instant lawsuit, there is a right to prevent transfer or delivery of the subject matter of compulsory execution as to the lawfulness of the part demanding non-permission of compulsory execution against movables Nos. 3, 4, and 6 among the instant lawsuit

I can bring an action of demurrer against a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da225038, Aug. 18, 2016). In such a case, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the owner of the movable property Nos. 3 and 4 of this case is G and the owner of the movable property No. 6 of this case.