1. The Defendant has the power to execute the Changwon District Court Jinju Branch Branch 2015Kao115 (No. 2015).

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application with the Changwon District Court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs with the Changwon District Court 2015Kao15 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) against the Nonindicted Incorporated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and decided that “The amount of litigation costs to be paid by the Nonindicted Company to the Defendant is KRW 2,248,645, the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed to the Defendant by the judgment in the case involving the Defendant and the Nonindicted Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) shall be determined.”

B. However, upon delay in the payment of the above costs of lawsuit by the non-party company, the defendant filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables pursuant to the above decision, and on March 30, 2016, the execution officer affiliated with the Jinju branch branch of the Changwon District Court rendered a seizure of corporeal movables on the attached list B located in Jinju-si, which is the location of the non-party company (hereinafter “instant movables”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the movable property of this case is owned by the plaintiff, it is inappropriate for the plaintiff to enforce compulsory execution based on the decision of the non-party company with respect to the movable property.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff, at the location of the instant movable property on October 1, 2014, is operating a separate stone wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “C”, and around August 8, 2015 and October 10 of the same year, imported and sold part of the instant movable property, the boundary stone and the seat of the establishment and use of the boundary stone, such as Nos. 4 and 5, from among the instant movable property, around 3, 4, and 5, respectively, are recognized as the Plaintiff’s ownership.

Therefore, compulsory execution against each of the above movables is unlawful according to the decision of the non-party company.

However, with respect to the remaining movables, it shall be the same.