1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. E operated a restaurant on the first floor of building F located in Daegu-gu with movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”).

B. E’s creditor G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) seized the instant movable for compulsory execution.

(2018No. 1218) The enforcement officer has kept the movables of this case to E.

C. On July 31, 2018, E used “a letter of delegation” as “a letter of delegation to (Plaintiff)” to “a person who has acquired all parts of the parts.”

E’s creditors No. 2018No. 1590, Defendant C filed an application for the seizure of the instant movable property with the heading 2018No. 2422, which was executed on August 8, 2018.

E. G withdrawn an application for enforcement of the instant movable property on August 9, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, 9, 10, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff acquired the instant movable property from E on July 31, 2018 and became the owner.

Plaintiff

Compulsory execution by the Defendants on the instant movable that is owned by the owner of the instant movable shall be prohibited.

B. Determination movables are subject to transfer of ownership to the assignee (Article 188(1) of the Civil Act). The acquisition of the instant movables, as asserted by the Plaintiff, cannot be acquired solely on the ground that the assignee took over the instant movables.

[As at that time, since the execution of the seizure of G was completed, it is impossible for the Plaintiff to receive the instant movable property without suppressing the crime of invalidation of an indication of public duty (Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act) (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5403, Jul. 11, 2018). The Plaintiff’s assertion itself is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.