2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph 1.

A. On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff, who runs a facility leasing business, occupied and used each of the movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movables”) as KRW 36 months, monthly rent of KRW 4,901,400, and entered into a facility leasing agreement with the Plaintiff to have ownership of the instant movables.

B. The Plaintiff installed the instant goods at the Ulsan-gu C and the first floor “D golf business place,” which is operated under B for the implementation of the said lease agreement.

C. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the No. 541 of the No. 541 of the No. 2014, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution against B’s corporeal movables, and on June 3, 2015, the execution officer of the Ulsan District Court attached the instant articles.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the goods of this case are owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the above goods on the premise that the above goods are owned by B is not permissible as unlawful.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

However, the decision of the court of first instance is delivered in accordance with the decision of the court of first instance since the reduction of claims due to the change of the plaintiff's list in the attached list has been changed in accordance with the decision of the court.