A. The Plaintiff, the object of which is a facility leasing business, concluded a facility leasing agreement with A (hereinafter “A”) on the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”), and agreed to have the ownership of the instant corporeal movables during the lease period.

C

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant issued a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) on June 18, 2018 with the Suwon District Court No. 2018No3217, based on a notarial deed (No. 2018 No. 692, a notary public’s joint office No. 2018 against A (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the ownership of the instant corporeal movables is owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s compulsory execution on the premise that the instant corporeal movables are owned by A is unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution of this case should not be permitted.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.