A. Based on the executory exemplification of the judgment on the purchase price of goods by Daegu District Court 2013Kadan1584, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure of corporeal movables with the Gwangju District Court 2015Mo2242, based on C and D, and the said court enforcement officer seized buildings E and articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant articles”) in attached Form No. 102, where C and D reside.

B. On July 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received a successful bid in KRW 1.22 million; (b) transferred the instant goods to F on the same day; (c) on the same day, F re-transfer the said goods to the Plaintiff; and (d) the Plaintiff, who received the said goods, permitted C and D to use the said goods.

C. Since then, the defendant is given the above A.

Based on the executory exemplification of the judgment stated in paragraph (1), the Gwangju District Court applied for the seizure of corporeal movables under 2016No. 2200, and the enforcement officer of the said court above.

The instant article was re- attached at the place indicated in the subsection. D.

The Plaintiff filed an application for provisional disposition seeking the suspension of compulsory execution of this case with Gwangju District Court 2016Kamin91, and the same court deposited KRW 820,000,000 on December 26, 2016, issued a provisional disposition suspending the instant compulsory execution until the judgment on the merits of this case is rendered.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the owner of the article in this case is not C or D, but the plaintiff.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, compulsory execution against the items listed in the attached list cannot be permitted.

In regard to this, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff donated the instant goods to C and D, and that the loan agreement between the Plaintiff, C and D was null and void as a false conspiracy, but the Plaintiff donated the instant goods to C and D.

The defendant's assertion is acceptable, since there is no specific evidence that the loan contract between the plaintiff, C, and D is a false conspiracy.