1. The Defendant’s decision on provisional seizure of corporeal movables by designating E, a stock company, as the debtor, is in force.

Basic Facts

The Defendant filed an application for provisional seizure of corporeal movables listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) with the claim to return KRW 20,000,000, which was part of the loans extended on March 6, 2014 to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), as the preserved claim, and received a decision of provisional seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “decision of provisional seizure of corporeal movables”) under the court’s 2018Kadan10244 on April 4, 2018, and on April 11, 2018, the fact that the instant provisional seizure order of corporeal movables was executed on April 11, 2018 is either disputed between the parties or may be recognized by the purport of entry in the evidence No. 1 and all pleadings.

According to the reasoning of Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff held loan claims of KRW 226,909,00 to E, and on March 8, 2010, between E and E, for the purpose of securing the above loan claims, a transfer contract for the transfer of security of the movable assets in E-owned facilities (hereinafter "the instant transfer of security contract"), including the instant corporeal movables, was entered into between E and E for the purpose of securing the above loan claims. E may be acknowledged as the fact that E transferred the ownership of the instant corporeal movables to the plaintiff by the method of occupying and amending the ownership thereof, and continuously occupied and used the instant corporeal movables necessary for screening the film. Accordingly, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant corporeal movables around March 8, 2010.

I would like to say.

Therefore, compulsory execution on the corporeal movables of this case, which was based on the decision of provisional seizure of this case to which E is the debtor, should not be permitted.

On November 10, 201, the Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s argument agreed that E transferred the right to possess a property in the business title to H and ordered G buildings to be present. The Plaintiff is no longer the owner of the instant corporeal movables, as the ownership of the right to possess the instant corporeal movables was transferred from E to H in accordance with the above agreement.

Judgment

H around February 2014, the Plaintiff’s E.