A. On February 21, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against A claiming the purchase price under the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap9668, and won a favorable judgment on September 12, 2014, and the said winning judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The Defendant, based on an executory exemplification of the judgment on the above purchase price case, applied for a compulsory execution of corporeal movables owned by A in Yongsan-gu, U.S.A. on October 1, 2014, the attached corporeal movables indicated in the indication of the attached corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant equipment”) were seized in the compulsory execution procedure as of October 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 6-1 to 6, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-1 to 6, and Gap evidence 10, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with Eul on September 30, 2014, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000, lease fee of KRW 6,617,200, and 36 months (in counting from the date the certificate of delivery was issued) for the lease period of the equipment of this case (hereinafter "lease contract of this case"), since the lease contract of this case provides that the plaintiff shall own the equipment of this case during the lease period of this case, and the plaintiff shall not be permitted to own the equipment of this case between the defendant and the defendant's sales contract of this case under the premise that the plaintiff already owned the equipment of this case and the defendant's sales contract of this case (hereinafter "the defendant's sales contract of this case").

3. Conclusion.