1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of premise;

A. On July 12, 2016, the execution officer of this Court attached corporeal movables in the Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and the fourth-story Dispute Resolution Office A (this Court No. 2016No. 2919) on the Defendant’s application with the title of execution of the instant No. notarial deed as the title of execution (this Court No. 2016) and kept them in A.

(b) An enforcement officer attached a seizure slip to a cell phone terminal box among the seized objects but did not enter the unique serial number of each device in the execution protocol, and the attached list of the cell phone seizure is as shown in the attached list No. 2.

(hereinafter referred to as the "subject matter of execution") of seized mobile phone terminals.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit for the exclusion of enforcement with the Defendant, even though the subject matter of enforcement was owned by the Defendant, not A, a debtor, but the execution debtor, and no one can know the whereabouts of the enforcement subject without permission from the seizure place.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the main movable property owned by the plaintiffs and the subject matter of execution are identical, and the defendant is dissatisfied with the identity. For the following reasons, it is difficult to recognize the identity of the main movable property and the subject matter of execution. Thus, regardless of whether the main movable property is owned by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit without further review.

B. The fact that the third party’s lawsuit is the requisite fact, that is, the fact that the execution act was commenced based on the enforcement title and the subject matter of the execution is the Plaintiff’s ownership or the right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the subject matter of the execution, and the remainder of the fact is an indirect fact.

C. Therefore, even if the Defendant reverses the recognition of the identity of the subject matter of execution and the key movable property, the identity is not an indirect fact, but an indirect fact, and thus, the confession is not bound by the court or the party, and thus, Supreme Court Decisions 201Da81514 Decided March 24, 2016.