1. On the basis of the executory exemplification of No. 142, 2018, the Defendant issued a notary public D office certificate against C with respect to C on August 16, 2018.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff was not repaid KRW 150 million to C, the Plaintiff acquired each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) from C and E on June 26, 2018 in lieu of a partial repayment of the loan claim, and the Defendant thereafter acknowledged the fact that the instant corporeal movables were subject to the executive title against C on August 16, 2018.

According to the above facts, the corporeal movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the executive title against C by the defendant is an infringement on the plaintiff's ownership, and thus, it cannot be permitted.

2. The defendant's assertion regarding the defendant's assertion that C's transfer of corporeal movables in this case to the plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus it should be revoked, and the defendant's compulsory execution should be permitted. However, the revocation of a fraudulent act can only be claimed by means of filing a lawsuit with the court, and it cannot be asserted as a means of attack and defense in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da4859, 48605, Mar. 13, 1998). The defendant's argument is not acceptable

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 48(3) and 47(1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Act to the approval of provisional disposition and declaration of provisional execution, and Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of litigation costs.