1.(a)

Defendant A is an executory exemplification of the Supreme Court Decision 2015Da34816 Decided December 11, 2015.

1. Determination as to the claim

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff leased to B movables listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff with a lease fee of KRW 5,950,353 per month, and the lease period of KRW 48 months, and each lease contract was concluded on May 13, 2015 with a lease fee of KRW 4,263,794 per month, and KRW 48 months for the lease period of KRW 48 months. 2) As to the aforementioned movables, Defendant A was owned by the Plaintiff, based on an executory exemplification of the Daegu District Court Decision 2015No34816, Dec. 11, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of the Decision 2015No34816, Apr. 14, 2016; Defendant C’s provisional execution order of KRW 2016, Apr. 16, 2016; and Defendant C’s provisional execution order of KRW 15,2016.2

3) Therefore, compulsory execution by the Defendants shall not be permitted. B. Determination 1) and 2 of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not a dispute regarding the Defendant’s special lecture, but it is deemed that the Defendant A and Choves Co., Ltd were led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, each of the above compulsory execution against movables listed in the separate sheet, owned by the Plaintiff, should be denied.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiff's claim on the ground that all the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.