1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff regarding corporeal movables listed in attached Table 54 shall be revoked.

B. The defendant

Basic Facts

According to the Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Kadan496 decided on February 16, 2017, the Defendant executed the provisional seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant articles”) against B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), on February 16, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff received corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet from Eul as to the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

Attached Form

Ccorporeal movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 19 of the Plaintiff’s assertion on each part of the corporeal movables listed in the list Nos. 1 through 19 are owned by the Plaintiff by the article purchased from the Defendant and made it available for use by B.

Judgment

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8, corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 17, and 19 are supplied by the defendant to the above "G restaurant" around August 26, 2016, and the defendant issued a tax invoice to the plaintiff as the recipient of the plaintiff, but received the price of the goods. On the other hand, if each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were added to the purport of the whole pleadings, the above corporeal movables operated the "G restaurant" under the above 101, which is the trade name before the change. The defendant received orders under the name of the representative director D at the time, and the defendant delivered each of the above corporeal movables to the above "G restaurant" under the name of the plaintiff's representative director at the time, and the plaintiff and the actual operator Eul issued the tax invoice to the defendant will pay the price in the future, and the defendant issued the tax invoice to the plaintiff in the future.