1. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment of Incheon District Court 2015Kahap6568 against the Defendant Company A, the Defendant Company A, which is based on the executory exemplification of the judgment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) produced compressed machines listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant compressed machines”); and (b) provided Company A (hereinafter “A”); and (c) supplied Company A (hereinafter “A”) with compressed irons, etc. that were compressedd.

B. On May 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with A to purchase the instant compressed machine in KRW 220 million, and entered into a facility lease agreement with A to lease the instant compressed machine to use it.

C. On October 25, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against A to claim the price of goods under the Incheon District Court 2015Gahap6568, and won the judgment in favor of the Defendant, and applied for the seizure to this court based on the final and conclusive judgment. On December 29, 2016, the enforcement officer of this court entrusted the execution by the Defendant, who was at the place of business of A, applied for the seizure to this court. The execution officer of this case, which was at the place of business of A, shall not

[The facts, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that since the plaintiff acquired ownership of the compressed machine of this case as stated in the above facts of recognition, the execution of the seizure of the compressed machine of this case on his own possession was unlawful. The defendant sold the compressed machine of this case to the plaintiff without any authority, and the bona fide acquisition by the method of possession revision is not recognized.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness B, Gap evidence No. 9, and Eul, the representative director of Gap was not paid the price of the goods from the defendant, and the defendant, the owner of the instant compressed machine, obtained consent to the disposition of the instant compressed machine, and concluded a lease agreement with the plaintiff after transferring the instant compressed machine to the plaintiff.

Accordingly, A shall be subject to the instant case.