Seoul Songpa-gu.

1. The representative director;

Busan Shipping Daegu.

2. The representative director;

2. This Court approves the ruling of the suspension of compulsory execution on May 30, 2017 with respect to the case of applying for the suspension of compulsory execution No. 2017 Chicago11.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings;

Articles 208(3)1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act

1. Facts about compulsory execution;

On May 16, 2017, the defendant had a fact that a notary public of the law firm Mywal Regional Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") conducted compulsory execution (the document No. 34 of the 2017 No. 34 of the 2017, which was prepared on January 13, 2017 by the law firm Mywal Regional Housing Association No. 329-2 of the 2017 (the document No. 1 of the 2017, No. 329-2 of the 2017, the plaintiff's office of the law firm Mywal Regional Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") on the articles listed in the attached list No. 2 of the plaintiff's ownership (hereinafter

2. Specific facts

(a) Conclusion of a partnership agency contract and a standard contract for construction business type;

1) On May 13, 2016, the non-party partnership entered into a partnership agency service contract (the certificate of proxy service contract No. 3) with the Plaintiff (the name of the Plaintiff changed to its current name from the development of oldable assets). According to Article 1 of the partnership agency service contract (hereinafter referred to as the “service contract”), the partnership entrusted the Plaintiff with all the business activities of which the partnership is proceeding on or around May 2015.

2) Accordingly, for the construction of the design space of the non-party corporation (hereinafter referred to as "design space"), the Plaintiff entered into a standard contract for the type of construction business with the construction period from June 2016 to September 3, 2016, the contract amount of KRW 1,009,00,000 (additional tax separate) for the construction of the apartment model model of the non-party corporation (hereinafter referred to as "design space") and the original school building model (hereinafter referred to as "design house"), and the model house was constructed. The Plaintiff was the owner of the above contract for the goods kept in the model house and the room (the non-party association ownership No. 26 to 28 of the No. 2 public notice letter of evidence No. 2).

(b) Preparation of written agreements and notarial deeds;

1) On January 12, 2017, a cooperative that is a party to a contract to recruit the Maz and well-known District Housing Association (hereinafter May 28, 2016), and the defendant and the defendant terminated the above contract, and the partnership paid in installments the accounts payable by the defendant in relation to the payment of the defendant's recruitment agency fees (including additional taxes), and written agreement (Evidence 5) to pay the total amount by April 30, 2017.

2) Therefore, at the Dasan General Law Office, a notary public prepared a notarial deed with the 146,950,000 won and the notarial deed under subparagraph 1 of this Article, which is the amount unpaid to the recruitment agency fees for the Mawwal Regional Housing Association, which is the creditor, the debtor, the debtor partnership, and the debt amount.

3. As to the Plaintiff’s ownership of the items listed in the separate sheet

A. The plaintiff is the plaintiff's possession of the goods of this case, which are installed by the plaintiff for the preparation of model parcels based on the service contract.

B. Nevertheless, the defendant applied for the seizure of the prior articles owned by the plaintiff on January 13, 2017 by a notary public against the non-party partnership on the basis of the notarial deed No. 34 (Evidence No. 1 A) of 2017 dated May 4, 2017, on the basis of the notarial deed No. 34 (No. 2017No. 2017.5.5.4, Chuncheon District Court's original state branch office No. 2017No. 309 (Evidence No. 2) and enforced the execution against the articles of this case owned by the applicant, which were the original state model No. 329-2 of the original state Office No. 329-2 (hereinafter referred to as "the notarial deed").

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since compulsory execution under the premise that the items recorded in the attached list are owned by the above non-party partnership is without merit, the plaintiff would have reached the claim of this case to seek the exclusion of the above compulsory execution as stated in the purport of the claim.

A person shall be appointed.