1. On June 16, 2015, the Defendant based on the executory exemplification of the mediation protocol in Busan District Court 2013 money23208 against C.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant seized corporeal movables in accordance with the executory exemplification of the conciliation protocol No. 2013s. 23208, Jun. 16, 2015, as to the movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2015s1749, Jun. 16, 2015. However, on Jan. 20, 2014, the plaintiff can be recognized the fact that the highest bidder was awarded a successful bid for the remaining movables other than No. 3,070,000 won in the case of compulsory execution of corporeal movables set forth in the separate sheet No. 2013s. 3 and 8, the plaintiff is the owner of the remaining movables except for the movables listed in the separate sheet No. 3 and 8. Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution against it should be denied. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that only the remaining movables except the movables Nos. 3 and 8 in the separate sheet among the above compulsory executions are owned by the Plaintiff, and sought to refuse compulsory execution against all the movables listed in the separate sheet at the end of the cause of the claim. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim as to the movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 8 is dismissed).