A. The fact that the Defendant’s attachment of the machines listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machines”) on November 27, 2015 based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deeds No. 542, 2015, by a notary public against B of the Clegal Office No. 542, does not conflict between the parties.

B. Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments as indicated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, it is recognized that the plaintiff purchased the instant machinery from D on May 8, 2014 in the purchase price of KRW 33,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million and lease period of KRW 36 months to B on the same day.

C. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant machinery is deemed to have been owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, a compulsory execution against the machinery of this case by the defendant based on the above executive title against B shall not be permitted.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.