1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On January 16, 2015, the fact that the Defendant, as a creditor against Nonparty B, has ownership of corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machinery”) as a creditor against Nonparty B by the Incheon District Court 2015Kadan10013, and applied for a provisional disposition prohibiting the possession of corporeal movables, transfer of possession and disposal of the instant machinery as a preserved right to the right to claim the delivery based on its ownership, and the execution of the provisional disposition on January 29, 2015 (hereinafter “execution of the provisional disposition in this case”) was completed may be recognized either as a dispute between the parties, or as a result of the written evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 8.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant machinery is not owned by B, but leased to B on January 18, 2014 as the Plaintiff’s ownership. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant provisional disposition execution should be dismissed by unjust means.

B. According to each of the records of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, the Plaintiff’s name prepared a letter of performance of the lease between B and C operated by B on January 18, 2014. The building located in Seo-gu Incheon, Incheon, where the instant machine is installed, can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff. However, the above facts alone lack to deem the instant machine as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, without any need to examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the instant machine is owned by the Plaintiff.

(3) Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.