1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Of the litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

The Defendant filed an application for the seizure of corporeal movables, including each corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet, based on the original copy of the judgment in the case No. 2016Gahap288 against C, and upon the said application, the Defendant’s seizure of each of the said corporeal movables by the Youngcheon District Court’s Young-gu Branch of the Chuncheon District Court on April 26, 2016 may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 1.

The plaintiff asserts that each corporeal movable property listed in the attached list attached to the attached list is owned by the plaintiff and sought a non-permission of the above compulsory execution. Since the defendant withdraws the above compulsory execution application, the lawsuit of this case is no longer beneficial interest in the lawsuit.

In this case, the third party’s lawsuit of demurrer is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit in case where a third party, who holds ownership or right to prevent transfer or transfer of the object of compulsory execution, infringes on the ownership or right of compulsory execution and seeks to exclude the enforcement of compulsory execution. Thus, in case where a lawsuit by a third party is filed after the completion of the pertinent compulsory execution, or a compulsory execution, which existed at the time of the filing of a lawsuit by a third party, is terminated during the course of the lawsuit by a third party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da37176 Decided November 22, 1996). However, according to the evidence No. 2, according to the record of evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the above compulsory execution by the Defendant’s withdrawal of the motion for seizure of corporeal movables from the above court No. 2016No. 96 on May 19, 2016, against which the Plaintiff was denied the execution.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is no longer effective, and the defendant's main defense pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is dismissed as unlawful, but Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to the burden of litigation costs in light of the circumstance when compulsory execution against the goods listed in the attached list has been completed.