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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On November 17, 2016, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 200,000 to C by designating the debtor C and joint guarantor I; (b) drafted a loan certificate stating that the due date is no later than November 17, 2017; and (c) based thereon, a notarial deed that C and I recognize compulsory execution was drafted as a notary public office No. 741, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notarial deed”). (b)

On May 2, 2018, based on the original copy of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “execution of seizure”) against the 62 corporeal movables (total value of KRW 84,790,000) including the first place of order, by designating C as the debtor within the N located within the boundary of N on both weeks, as the debtor.

C. On July 17, 2018, on the basis of the authentic copy of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant seizure execution”) with respect to 35 corporeal movables (e.g., corporeal movables in the amount of js (face 1500) 15, etc. (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) by designating C as the debtor at the Plaintiff’s business establishment located in Yangju City as the Plaintiff’s (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).

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

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s corporeal movables are owned by the Plaintiff due to the raw timber household purchased from I (mutual “H”) or L (mutual “K”), etc.

Therefore, the execution of the seizure of this case is a compulsory execution against the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff, a third party, and seek exclusion therefrom.

B. Defendant 1) (1) In light of the process of purchase asserted by the Plaintiff and the attitude of C and I, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff actually engaged in the wholesale business of the original wood household, and rather, Defendant C (the Plaintiff is the opposite contractual party, and the Plaintiff is the title C).