2. With respect to cases of application for suspension of compulsory execution by this Court, February 12, 2016.

A. On January 10, 2012, the instant payment order was finalized on January 10, 2012 by the Defendant’s application for the instant payment order against Nonparty C Co., Ltd (the trade name was changed to “Co. D” on July 24, 2015, and the instant payment order was finalized.

B. Based on the original copy of the instant payment order, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution with the Seoul Southern District Court 2016No252, and completed the attachment execution for each of the items listed in the separate sheet in the Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu and the 21st Non-dong 2101 (hereinafter “instant office”).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the office of this case is an individual office of the plaintiff, and the remaining articles except the articles listed in the Nos. 5 and 10 among the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each of the corporeal movables of this case") purchased at the plaintiff's expense. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution against the corporeal movables of this case based on the original copy of the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. Determination 1) In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number), the location of the headquarters of the non-party company in the corporate register of the non-party company is "Y of Seocheon-gu Office F" and its representative is a company director G; as of February 1, 2014, the non-party company supplied the goods to the plaintiff in the name of the defendant company and Eul (the trade name after the change of the non-party company) and prepared a total sales contract (Evidence No. 4) with the content that the defendant sold the goods; it is recognized that a written estimate has been issued against the plaintiff regarding each of the corporeal movables in this case; on the other hand, it is acknowledged that Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 were comprehensively taken into account the overall purport of arguments as to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 4.