1. As to the defendant C Co., Ltd., Busan District Court Decision 2014Da68224, Busan District Court's recommendation for compromise with executory power.

1. The Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking extradition of movable property against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with Busan District Court Decision 2014Da68224, Busan District Court, but did not object to a ruling of recommending settlement (hereinafter “decision of recommending settlement of this case”) issued by the said court to order the Defendant to pay money, and thus, the said ruling of recommending settlement became final and conclusive. Based on the above executory decision of recommending settlement, the Daejeon District Court issued a ruling of recommending settlement with the Daejeon District Court 2015No1475 on April 13, 2015 as to the goods listed in the attached list on the D’s ground in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Daejeon District Court (hereinafter “instant freezing”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff purchased the freezing of this case from E, and transferred the purchase price from inside director F and the plaintiff's bank account to E from the bank account, the representative of the plaintiff, to E, and the facts that the building under freezing of this case is owned by the plaintiff can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, the freezing of this case is deemed as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and barring any special circumstance, the compulsory execution on the order with the executive title against the non-party company, not the Plaintiff, should be denied.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment are identical to the plaintiff and the non-party company's objective of establishment, the location and executive officers of which are the same, and the director F, the representative of the plaintiff, as the non-party company, set up a collateral security at the bank. The non-party company purchased the freezing of this case in the name of the plaintiff for the purpose of evading debts. Thus, the non-party company purchased the freezing of this case in the name of the plaintiff.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the location of the principal office of the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company is the same, and the representative of the Plaintiff Company.