A. From May 31, 2012 to January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement and trademark lease agreement providing that each of the corporeal movables entered in the indication of the corporeal movables, seeking a non-execution refusal, (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) with the Soon Special Area Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Soon Special Area”) shall be used for a specified period of 36 months (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”). From May 31, 2012 to January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed that the ownership of the instant corporeal movables shall be located in the Plaintiff during the said period stipulated in the said lease agreement and the said lease agreement.

B. On May 29, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security under Article 6 of the Inventory 2014-87 of the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act with respect to the instant corporeal movables, as well as the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security under Article 2015-106 of the List of List 6 of the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act on May 6, 2015.

C. On November 13, 2014, a decision to commence voluntary auction of the instant corporeal movables was rendered.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 13, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the ownership of the instant corporeal movables was owned by the Plaintiff at the time the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of the said corporeal movables on the instant corporeal movables, and the possession of the instant corporeal movables on the solitary Special Area, barring special circumstances, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff on the basis of the registration of the establishment of the said corporeal movables on the solitary Special Area shall not be allowed

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed since the Plaintiff failed to prove that the instant corporeal movables and the Plaintiff’s leased objects are identical. However, the instant corporeal movables are the Plaintiff.