1. As to movables listed in the separate sheet

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd. against Nonparty F Co., Ltd. is a notary public.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 24, 2018, Defendant C filed an application for seizure of the movable property indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) at the seat of F’s place of business on January 24, 2018, with the enforcement title 2016Do245, which was owned by a notary public against Nonparty F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), as a movable property attachment case of Gwangju District Court 2018No350, Jan. 26, 2018.

B. Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) conducted attachment execution of the instant seized movables on February 7, 2018, based on the authentic copy of No. 2016Do1809, No. 2016Do970, No. 20170, a notary public, the executive title of which he/she holds with F, based on the authentic copy of No. 2016, No. 2016, Feb. 7, 2018.

C. From January 2016, the Plaintiff was engaged in a contract for the supply of automobile parts from F. The Plaintiff purchased raw materials and supplied F with them, and F traded the completed automobile parts with raw materials supplied from the Plaintiff and supplied them to the Plaintiff.

The method of settlement of price has been paying the amount calculated after deducting the raw material cost that the F received from the Plaintiff from the price for automobile parts supplied to F, as the name of "processing Cost".

Therefore, the price of raw materials supplied to the Plaintiff by F was not paid in cash by F to the Plaintiff, and it was done by deducting the Plaintiff’s raw material price claim against F from the price of supply of parts to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff.

E. The instant attached movables are raw materials supplied by the Plaintiff to F for the processing and manufacture of automobile parts supplied by the Plaintiff to F.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence 1, 3, 4, 6 through 12, 16, 19, 23 through 46 (including branch numbers), the whole purport of the pleading

2. According to the fact that the ownership of the instant attached movables is recognized, the Plaintiff and F.