2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On November 9, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Gapo-si, Kimpo-si, 2016), and sentenced B to the judgment that “B shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 31, 2016 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

B. The Defendant filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables in accordance with the instant judgment, and the enforcement officer of this court rendered a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) with respect to the movables listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant machinery”) at the place of business located in C, in the time of industrialization operated by B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion is owned by E and the Plaintiff purchased it as an ownership reservation book and pays the price, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to enforce compulsory execution against the instant machinery based on the original copy of the judgment against B.

3. The fact that the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff has the right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the ownership and other subject matters in a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is obliged to prove that the machinery of this case is owned by E and it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is the buyer of ownership reservation. There is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.