A. The relationship between the parties 1) D has been engaged in metal processing business with the trade name “E” from January 2010. 2) The Plaintiff’s husband who is the Plaintiff’s husband was employed as an employee of “E” operated by D, and entered into a contract with D on December 1, 201 with the small president around December 1, 201, and thereafter, he had been engaged in manufacturing business at the “E” factory in the name of “F”.

B. On November 11, 201, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant movables”) from D from November 11, 201, from D, KRW 12 million (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”); D paid KRW 3.5 million on the same day; KRW 2.5 million on the same day; KRW 2.5 million on the 25th of the same month; and KRW 6 million on the 29th of the same month; and around that time, D received each of the instant movables from D.

C. Compulsory execution 1 against each of the instant movables: (a) the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C to claim damages, etc. due to the breach of the agreement with the Busan District Court 2013Da53614; and (b) on April 22, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment that included “C shall pay the Defendant KRW 4 million and its delayed damages.” The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time; (b) the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution of corporeal movables with the Changwon District Court 2014No1610 based on the executory exemplification of the said judgment, and seized each of the movables listed in the separate sheet in the “F” factory on June 3, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 through 15 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, each movable listed in the separate sheet is owned by the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, and thus, compulsory execution should be dismissed.

B. The defendant's assertion 1 is registered as the business operator of "F" by the plaintiff's husband.