1. The Defendant’s attachment on October 27, 2015 based on the payment order (No. 2015 tea 1042), which was issued by the Changwon District Court for B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased 600 million won for the price from B, 200 million won, 30,000 Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, 493 square meters, 265 square meters, D 72 square meters, and E-road 20 square meters, and corporeal movables in the attached list located in the above factory building (hereinafter “instant machinery”), and paid 100 million won for the same day down payment to B, and 50 million won for the remainder on October 17, 2014, and received the registration of ownership transfer from B on October 22, 2014.

B. On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant factory building and the instant machinery to B by setting the rent of KRW 800,000 per month and the lease period from December 1, 2014 to December 24, 2014.

C. However, on October 27, 2015, the Defendant seized the instant machinery based on the payment order written on B’s order on October 27, 2015.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute between the parties; Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5; Gap evidence 4-1 to 4; witness Eul's testimony; fact-finding results to Busan District Court's Gangseo registry office; purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the machinery of this case belongs to the plaintiff's ownership, the defendant should not be subject to compulsory execution against the machinery of this case.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the execution against the instant machinery by the defendant is justifiable, since the plaintiff did not purchase the instant machinery from B.

B. The judgment below is based on each of the evidence employed above. The plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff entered the purport of the above machinery in the sales contract, including the object of purchase of the building site and building from B at the time of purchase of the building site and building from B, and on the other hand, it is difficult for the plaintiff and B to determine the above recognition only by a statement of evidence No. 1 to the effect that the plaintiff and B had the purchase price of the land and building be registered as KRW 600 million in the column of the sale list of real estate register. The