1. The Defendant rendered the Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gahap754 Decided July 22, 2014 with respect to Non-Party B Co., Ltd.

1. In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, based on the executory exemplification of this court judgment 2014Gahap754 against non-party corporation B (hereinafter "B"), the defendant was issued an order of seizure of the right to request delivery of corporeal movables (hereinafter "execution of this case") on November 12, 2013, on the basis of the provisional seizure of the right to request delivery of corporeal movables under the attached Table No. 1 against the judgment of this court 2013Kadan57 against the non-party corporation B (hereinafter "B"), and on September 19, 2014, the defendant was issued an order of seizure of the right to request delivery of corporeal movables (hereinafter "execution of this case").

2. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7-15 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) Eul installed each movable in the separate sheet Nos. 2, including H-sn beam 138 tons at the above construction site with respect to the land and household facilities construction subcontracted by Daewoo Construction on September 30, 201; (b) provided the said movable as security to Eul on August 23, 2013; (c) purchased each movable in the separate sheet No. 2 from D on July 25, 2014 from the plaintiff; (c) the movable in the separate sheet No. 1 is a combination or combination of movable property in the separate sheet No. 2 for the said construction; and (d) it is included in the separate sheet No. 2.

In light of the above facts, since each movable set forth in the separate sheet No. 1 is owned by the plaintiff, the execution of this case by the defendant, which is based on the premise that Eul is entitled to claim the delivery of the above movable as the owner of the above movable property, shall be dismissed as it is illegal as it was executed on the goods owned by the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.