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

A. On January 10, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C to seek delivery of building and payment of money by Busan District Court 2018Kadan19275, and received a favorable judgment on January 10, 2019, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On March 18, 2019, based on the executory exemplification of the above judgment, the Defendant executed the attachment of movable property listed in the separate sheet (the Plaintiff alleged that March 13, 2019 was the Plaintiff, but it appears to be a clerical error) based on the attached sheet.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 4, 5, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the aforementioned movable property is owned by the Plaintiff, so the above attachment execution should not be permitted.

3. The written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the above movable was owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(A) Article 2(4) of the Special Agreement on the Settlement of Evidence No. 2 provides that “No. 400 million won shall have property rights on the facilities and the interior cost,” and the foregoing description alone is difficult to recognize that the said movable is owned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion is without merit.