1. The Defendant’s deed No. 646, 201, which was executed by the notary public against Nonparty B, is a law firm notarial office.

On July 16, 2015, the fact that the Defendant’s seizure of corporeal movables listed in the attached Form No. 2015No. 391 by the Suwon District Court on the basis of a notarial deed as indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) by making B as the debtor on July 16, 2015 does not conflict

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 3 through 10, since the owner of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet is recognized as having been kept by the plaintiff as the plaintiff in custody of these corporeal movables to B, the execution of the seizure of the said corporeal movables based on the notarial deed by the defendant is illegal on the premise that the said corporeal movables are owned by B.

Therefore, the plaintiff's objection, based on the original copy of the notarial deed of this case, seeking the exclusion of compulsory execution against corporeal movables listed in the attached list, shall be cited for the reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.