1. The portion of the claim for delivery of movables among the counterclaim of this case that has been changed in exchange in this court shall be dismissed, and the remainder.

1. The first instance court dismissed all the Defendant’s counterclaim claiming a non-performance of compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim claiming a payment of money when the delivery of the instant corporeal movables and the delivery and execution of the instant corporeal movables by the sequence No. 1 of the separate sheet among the instant corporeal movables was impossible.

However, after filing an appeal against Defendant only counterclaim, the purport of the claim was exchangedly modified as above, and the Plaintiff did not appeal against the principal claim.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the defendant's counterclaim claim for the plaintiff and the changed claim in exchange.

2. Basic facts

A. On April 19, 2017, the Defendant applied for a collection order of seizure of the instant corporeal movables delivery claim against the Plaintiff by using the claim amounting to KRW 50,000,000 based on the No. 255 of the Promissory Notes No. 2015 (No. 2015), which he/she has against the Plaintiff as the claim claim amounting to KRW 50,000,00 based on the notarial deeds of promissory Notes (No. 2015), and issued a seizure collection order on April 22, 2017, and the said decision was served on the Plaintiff, who is the garnishee.

B. The instant corporeal movables are located within the 24-20, and the 1st floor agency, Gwangju-dong, Gyeong-dong, the Plaintiff claimed as its own business place.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 in the evidence No. 1-1, 2, and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination on the part on the claim for extradition among the counterclaim of this case

A. As alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff refused to deliver the instant corporeal movables to the execution officer, notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff received a seizure collection order for the instant corporeal movables as above. Thus, the Plaintiff shall deliver the instant corporeal movables to the execution officer entrusted by the Defendant under Article 193(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

B. Determination ex officio is made, and Article 193(1) of the Civil Execution Act, which is the ground for the defendant's claim, provides that a third party occupies seized objects.