1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution 2018 Chicago21, March 19, 2018

1. Fact-finding;

A. On May 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a favorable judgment to the Defendant for the payment of KRW 250,000,000, and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “instant favorable judgment”) by filing a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. for the return of the investment deposit, etc. with the Goyang-gu District Court 2016Gahap75480, the Defendant was sentenced to a favorable judgment (hereinafter “instant favorable judgment”).

B. C appealed on the above judgment as Seoul High Court No. 2017Na2027318, but the judgment became final and conclusive on January 10, 2018, upon having been sentenced to dismissal of an appeal on December 21, 2017.

C. On February 28, 2018, the Defendant delegated the execution of the instant winning judgment to this Court No. 2018No. 529, and the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant execution”) with respect to the objects listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movables”) at the domicile of C (hereinafter “instant movables”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the instant claim: (a) lent KRW 4 million to C’s husband D, and concluded a security agreement with D and some of the instant movable property (other than the attached No. 11 through No. 14 out of the instant movable property) and completed a notarial deed; (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the instant claim was owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant enforcement is unlawful.

B. (1) According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the plaintiff was offered as a security for transfer the remainder of the movable property except No. 11 and 14 out of the instant movable property for the purpose of lending the due date to D, who is the husband of C on July 31, 2016, with the period of reimbursement of KRW 4 million fixed as of July 31, 2018, and securing the performance thereof, D and a notary public prepared a notarial deed of monetary loan contract for transfer for corporeal movable property as of March 347, 2016.

D. However, in light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence presented above, notarial deeds as above.