1. The Defendant’s notary public on metal has the executive force of No. 241, 2017.

1. In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the defendant, based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed with executory power of No. 241, 2017, a notary public on metal, the defendant executed a seizure execution of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant execution”) on each of the movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”) on May 10, 2017.

2. In addition to the written evidence Nos. 1 through 9 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant movable property from MTT industry from October 2015 to December 2015, and on January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff was recognized to lease each of the instant movable property on the metal. Thus, the Defendant’s compulsory execution of the instant movable property premised on the ownership of Cho metal should be denied.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the lease contract between the plaintiff and Cho Jae-dong Co., Ltd. for each of the goods of this case is evaded execution by the defendant, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion constitutes an abuse of rights. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.