1. The Defendant’s Daegu District Court on Non-Party C’s execution decision 2009 Ghana 183988 dated October 20, 2009.

1. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments as indicated in subparagraphs 1 through 5, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 8 million to Nonparty C. On August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to pay interest of KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff up to October 10, 2016 and agreed to pay interest of KRW 10,000 to the Plaintiff by October 2, 2016, and transferred possession to the Plaintiff by means of occupancy revision (hereinafter “instant movable property”), and C thereafter repaid the amount of KRW 110,00 per month to the Plaintiff as principal and interest. However, the Defendant seized the instant movable property on March 7, 2017 based on this Court Decision of 2009Ga183988.

2. According to the above facts, since the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the movable property of this case for the purpose of securing claims, compulsory execution against the movable property of this case by the Defendant based on the decision of performance recommendation against C is not legitimate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion seeking the exclusion of compulsory execution is with merit.

3. The defendant alleged that C offered the instant movable property as a security for transfer without paying the defendant's debt constitutes a fraudulent act, but the right to revoke the fraudulent act should be exercised by filing a lawsuit and cannot be exercised as a defense. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.