1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:

The defendant filed an application for provisional seizure of corporeal movables with the debtor as the plaintiff, the claim claim and claim amount amount as KRW 3,673,629, under the Young-gun District Court 201, the Young-gun District Court 201, the Young-gun District Court 200, the Cheongju District Court 201, and received a ruling on the provisional seizure of corporeal movables from the above court on May

(hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”). (b)

The Defendant, based on the decision of provisional seizure of this case, had an enforcement officer execute provisional seizure of the sales goods owned by the Plaintiff (e.g., alcoholic beverages, sugar, rice, and sweak) within the upper point of “B” operated by the Plaintiff.

C. On June 15, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the price of goods against the Plaintiff on June 15, 2012, as the main lawsuit against the instant provisional attachment order, the Cheongju District Court Decision 2012Gaso1462.

On August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the decision of provisional seizure of this case with the Young-gun District Court 2012Kadan88, Young-gun District Court 201, and revoked the provisional seizure decision of this case and was decided to dismiss the Defendant’s application of provisional seizure of this case.

E. On September 17, 2012, the Cheongju District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on the ground that the other party who supplied the goods was not proven to be the Plaintiff in relation to the principal lawsuit filed by the Defendant in Young-dong District Court (Cheongju District Court 2012Na5057), and the Defendant appealed therefrom (Cheongju District Court 201Na5057), but the appeal was dismissed on July 2, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 25, 2013.

2. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not have a claim for the purchase price of goods against the plaintiff, but did not make an unjust provisional seizure against the plaintiff's corporeal movables. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not sell the goods within "B" for four months after the provisional seizure of this case.