1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Incheon District Court Decision 2015Gahap6568 against Non-Party D.

1. The Defendant: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the Incheon District Court Decision 2015Kahap6568 Decided D (hereinafter “D”) rendered a seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) under this Court No. 2016No3823, Dec. 26, 2016, on the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Incheon District Court Decision 2015Gahap6568 on December 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant compulsory execution should be denied, since the Plaintiff acquired the right to transfer a security on the instant machinery prior to the instant compulsory execution. 2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant compulsory execution is lawful, since the Plaintiff’s claim against D was extinguished in full by repayment, and the Plaintiff’s transfer security right also became extinct.

B. Determination 1) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 3-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3-2, it is recognized that D prepared a notarial deed on September 5, 2016 by a notary public of the Plaintiff and Incheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office (a quasi-loan for consumption) with a view to securing KRW 50,00,000 for the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff. In the event a contract establishing a security interest in movable property was made, the mortgagee may assert that he/she is the owner of the movable property and exercise his/her right in relation to a third party other than the person establishing the security interest in movable property. Considering the facts stated in evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 2016 through No. 801, the instant compulsory execution on the instant machinery should not be permitted, and considering that the Plaintiff’s total amount of goods transferred from 20,000 to 40,000,000 won under the name of the Plaintiff’s account No. 204.