The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The Defendant: (a) the seizure of heading 1414 heading 1414 of the Gwangju District Court Branch 2014 is against a vessel on which the registration of a mortgage has been completed; (b) pursuant to the provisions on compulsory auction of real estate; or (c) pursuant to the compulsory execution procedure for movable property; (d) the seizure of heading 2015 heading 890 of the same court is against a small-sized vessel, the construction of which has already been completed; (b) pursuant to the compulsory execution procedure for a motor vehicle; or (c) is against a vessel owned by another person; and (d) even if the seizure of each vessel itself was unlawful, it cannot be deemed as a conviction of invalidation of the indication of official duty even if the

The argument is asserted.

First of all, the attachment of the above 2014 head office 1414 is considered as follows.

Even if a mortgage is registered, a ship under construction shall not be deemed a ship yet, so it shall be deemed a legal movable property. Therefore, a ship seized in accordance with the seizure procedure of a movable property.

The seizure is not illegal.

Next, the attachment of heading 890 of 2015 is deemed as follows.

According to Articles 172 and 187 of the Civil Execution Act, and Article 130 of the Civil Execution Rule, when a small-sized vessel, which cannot be registered, is registered in the fishing vessel registry, a compulsory execution shall be conducted in accordance with the compulsory execution procedure against an automobile. However, a small-sized vessel, which is not registered in the fishing vessel registry, shall not be subject to compulsory execution procedure against an automobile. Thus, a small-sized vessel, which is not registered in the fishing vessel registry, shall follow the compulsory execution procedure against an automobile, and pursuant to Article 189(1) of the Civil Execution Act, a corporeal movable owned by an obligor

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the vessel seized pursuant to the above 2015 main 890 was not registered in the fishing vessel registry at the time of seizure, and Q Q Co., Ltd. operated by the defendant was above.