1. The Defendant’s Daegu District Court Decision 2017 Ghana69852 Decided August 22, 2018 (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”) against E is a case of unjust enrichment.

1. Basic facts

A. The F seized corporeal movables, including the movable properties indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) by the Daegu District Court 2017Guj6196 on the basis of the executory order of payment for the termination refund refund of the Daegu District Court 2017Guj6196 against E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). On May 15, 2018, the said corporeal movables were sold to G during the auction procedure for corporeal movables conducted in the instant case.

B. On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for the instant corporeal movables with G, paid the sales price to G on the same day, and had the Nonparty Company use the said corporeal movables without compensation.

C. On August 22, 2018, the Defendant attached the instant corporeal movables, etc. to the Daegu District Court No. 2018No3151, Oct. 11, 2018, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment on unjust enrichment case against the Nonparty Company, based on the Daegu District Court’s Daegu District Court’s 2017 Family Court’s 2017 Ghana6852 Decided August

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the corporeal movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the above corporeal movables owned by the defendant, not the execution debtor, cannot be permitted.

B. In light of the fact that the location of the Plaintiff’s establishment was currently the location of the non-party company, the purpose of business is similar, and H was the internal director of the Plaintiff and the non-party company, the Plaintiff and the non-party company are practically the same company, and the corporeal movables in this case are all owned by

However, just because the defendant asserts, the plaintiff and the non-party company were treated as the same company.

In addition, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff abused the legal personality, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's assertion is rejected.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.