1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the No. 1964 of the No. 1964 of the Busan Eastern Department of Law as to Nonparty C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C was engaged in the wedding hall business (hereinafter the instant wedding hall business) by leasing the building D building in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-gu, Seoul, Inc. from the K Estetete.

B. On April 4, 2014, C entered into a contract with the Plaintiffs to transfer all of the facilities, including the instant wedding hall business rights and movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant movable property”) to KRW 732 billion for premium.

C. Around March 31, 2014, KSE terminated the lease of the instant wedding building with C on the ground of delinquency, such as rent, etc., and on April 7, 2014, the instant wedding building was leased to the Plaintiffs.

C closed down the instant wedding hall business on April 4, 2014, and delivered the instant movable property to the Plaintiffs on April 7, 2014.

On April 16, 2014, the Defendant, based on the executory exemplification of No. 1964 of the No. 1964 of the Busan East-dong Department, Law Firm, Busan-dong, performed compulsory execution (hereinafter in this case’s compulsory execution) on the movable property of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-11 (including additional numbers), witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs acquired ownership of the instant movable property on April 7, 2014, and thus, the ownership of the instant movable property is not C but to the Plaintiffs.

Compulsory execution of the instant movable cannot be permitted against the instant movable.

3. The plaintiffs' claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.