1. On October 23, 2017, based on the original of the payment order with executory power of the Incheon District Court 2017 tea5333 against B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a request against B for a payment order claiming payment of the price of goods under Incheon District Court No. 2017 tea5333, and on September 19, 2017, the payment order was issued by the above court, which became final and conclusive on October 11, 2017.

B. On October 23, 2017, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables based on the executory exemplification of the above payment order.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings in witness Eul's testimony, the plaintiff purchased and leased each movable property listed in Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 among movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the machinery of this case") to Eul, and it is recognized that Eul produced products and supplied them to the plaintiff using the machinery of this case, it is reasonable to view that the machinery of this case is owned by the plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution against the instant machinery should be denied.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.