1. The Defendants’ phrase “execution right holder” in the attached list of “Executive Right holder” as to the hanok Leisure Co., Ltd. is stated respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with each of the movables listed in “the current status of leased articles (kart)” (hereinafter “each of the movables of this case”) on December 27, 2013, with the acquisition cost of KRW 468,00,000 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), and ② on January 27, 2014, with the acquisition cost of KRW 1 to 110,000 among each of the movables of this case, respectively leased KRW 40,00,000. Paragraph (1) of the said lease agreement provides that the Plaintiff shall own the ownership of each of the movables of this case, which is the object of the lease.

B. According to the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the request for governance of the groundr so that pentsan Leisure Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Einsan Leisure”) that jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Plaintiff under the foregoing lease agreement (hereinafter “Einsan Leisure”) may use each of the instant movable property, the Plaintiff occupied the instant movable property and used each of the instant movable property at the TGV golf course in its management.

C. At the request of the Defendants, who are creditors of the aggregate leisure, the “execution right holder” column in the list of execution titles in the annexed list of execution titles, based on each enforcement title indicated in the same list, the compulsory execution against each of the instant movables was commenced on the date of execution, but the execution procedure was suspended due to the decision to suspend compulsory execution on March 18, 2015 upon the request of the Plaintiff (this Court Decision 2015Kao226).

[Ground of Recognition] Defendant S: Evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, 2, A-3-24, Gap evidence Nos. 4, and other Defendants except Defendant S: The court below's decision without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the ownership of each of the instant movable in this case shall be deemed to exist to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants shall be subject to the execution title for the rooftop leisure in this case.