1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, asserted that the instant compulsory execution was unlawful on the part of the Defendant’s movable property owned by the Plaintiff based on the enforcement title against B, and filed the instant lawsuit.

The lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is unlawful in cases where a third party, who has ownership or right to prevent transfer or transfer of the object of compulsory execution, has asserted an objection against compulsory execution that is practically being carried out by infringing on such right, and seek the exclusion of enforcement. As such, in cases where a lawsuit by a third party is filed after the completion of the pertinent compulsory execution, or compulsory execution that existed at the time when the lawsuit by a third party was filed, is terminated during the course of the lawsuit, there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da37176 Decided November 22, 1996, etc.). However, in the procedure of the instant compulsory execution, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet are sold to E and paid the price in full and the completion of distribution is completed on April 20, 2017. As such, insofar as the compulsory execution of the instant case is completed during the proceeding of a lawsuit, there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

As to this, the Plaintiff, from April 21, 2017 E, purchased corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet in KRW 4,00,000, again, and the Defendant again seized them on June 28, 2017, claiming that there exists a benefit of lawsuit.

However, the cancellation by the judgment of a third party's suit is limited to a specific execution disposition for the object against which an objection is raised, and the existence of an objection against the specific execution disposition is nothing more than that of the confirmation by res judicata. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. If so, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as unlawful.

The judgment of the first instance, which differs from this conclusion, is unfair, so it is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.