1. The Defendant rendered a decision to recommend reconciliation with the executory power over the purchase price of goods No. 2016 Ghana District Court 2016Kadan4754.

1. In full view of the facts without any dispute over judgment, and the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a provisional number), it is reasonable to deem the instant corporeal movables as owned by the plaintiff as owned by the plaintiff, based on the recommendation for reconciliation as indicated in the Disposition No. 1, that the defendant seized B as the debtor on October 24, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”); ② the plaintiff acquired the instant corporeal movables from Eul on May 20, 2016 from May 20 to May 20, 2017; and ② the plaintiff leased the instant corporeal movables to B from May 20, 2016 to May 20, 2017.

(B) The Defendant asserted that the transfer of the instant corporeal movables was a fraudulent act by the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and even if the said transfer was a fraudulent act, as long as the said transfer was not revoked through the court’s litigation procedures, there is no change in the above conclusion). Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables based on the Defendant’s ruling of recommending settlement against B ought to be denied.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted for reasons, and the suspension of compulsory execution and its provisional execution are declared ex officio pursuant to Articles 48 and 47 of the Civil Execution Act.