1. A notary public against Defendant B, a non-party medical corporation D, in 2013, issued by the General Law Office of Ho-nam, Law Firm.

1. Determination as to the cause of the instant claim

A. (1) The plaintiff on April 1, 2013 and the same year

7.5. Attached Form owned by him

2. According to the instant sales contract, various medical equipment, including movable property recorded in the list of movable property (hereinafter “instant movable property”), were sold to Nonparty D (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). According to the sales contract, the ownership of the instant movable property is reserved by the Plaintiff, the seller, until full payment of the purchase price is made.

(2) When the Plaintiff was unable to receive the purchase price stipulated in the instant sales contract from D, the Plaintiff filed a claim against D for the return of the medical equipment delivered to D pursuant to the instant sales contract, including the instant movable property, with the Jeonju District Court 2014Da27410, on the ground of the rescission of the said sales contract, on the grounds of the cancellation of the said sales contract. The Plaintiff won the entire judgment on October 30, 2014 on the ground that D did not dispute the Plaintiff’s claim.

(3) However, Defendant B based on the executory exemplification of notarial deed No. 1066, 2013, which was executed by the notary public of the Republic of Korea (No. 1066), Defendant C is based on the executory exemplification of notarial deed No. 155, 2013, which was executed by the notary public of the Republic of Korea (No. 155) on August 14, 2014, each of which is within “F Hospital” located in the Kim Jong-si.

1. As to the movables indicated in the seizure list (including the instant movables), the seizure of each of the corporeal movables was executed by this Court No. 2014No. 1560 and 2014No. 1567

(hereinafter referred to as "execution of each of the instant seizures") / 33, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 of the instant seizures / Each of the instant seizures / All of the pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the execution of each of the instant seizure of the instant movable property is illegal as it was conducted on the Plaintiff’s movable property, not D, and thus, it should not be permitted.