2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Even after the instant notarial deed was prepared, the Defendant and C continued a monetary transaction, but C from April 2014, requested the settlement with her husband to the Defendant and did not pay the fraternity.

On August 20, 2015, the Defendant applied for compulsory execution with the instant Notarial Deed as an executive title. On September 7, 2015, the enforcement officer affiliated with this court seized the instant movable property, etc. located in C’s residence.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that, although the Plaintiff had a loan claim against C, as long as it concluded a security agreement with C on the instant movable in lieu of paying the balance and received the instant movable in the manner of possession revision, the instant movable is owned by the Plaintiff, and ② the Defendant’s claim against C also extinguished by repayment, etc., compulsory execution against the instant movable is unlawful.

In this regard, the defendant alleged that C had been aware of the fact that C applied for a compulsory execution by the defendant and concluded a security agreement to be exempted from the enforcement, so this case's movable property is still owned by C.

B. In full view of the determination of facts and evidence below, the transfer of security agreement between the Plaintiff and C concerning the instant movable property constitutes a false indication made in collusion with the Plaintiff in order for C to be exempted from the Defendant’s compulsory execution.

① The Plaintiff is C’s friendship.

(C) 2. The plaintiff on July 26, 2015.