1. The Defendant has the executive force of the case 2017 Ghana 19026, Goyang Branch of the District Court against C and D.

1. Under the trade name of “E,” the Plaintiff: (a) supplied dental equipment and materials to dental hospitals; and (b) delivered each of the movables listed in the separate sheet to the “F dental clinic” operated by “E” in the form of sale by the ownership reservation book around 2014-2016.

On August 30, 2017, the Defendant seized corporeal movables under the [Attachment] No. 2017No. 5871] of the Incheon District Court as to the 1st and 1st (LEADER CHAIR) 7th (hereinafter “instant movables”) among the items listed in the separate sheet.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the event that there is a so-called agreement of ownership reservation that the seller decides to hold the ownership of an object and transfers the object to the buyer in advance, the agreement between the parties on the transfer of ownership in the future is made on the condition that the payment of the price is suspended, barring any special circumstance.

Therefore, while the buyer does not pay the price in full, the ownership of the object still exists as agreed by the seller, and when the price is paid in full, the ownership of the object is transferred to the buyer without any separate declaration of intention.

In addition, even if the buyer paid a considerable portion of the purchase price, it is not different.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93671 Decided February 11, 2010). According to the aforementioned evidence, D purchased the instant movable property from the Plaintiff, and it can be acknowledged that if the obligation to pay the goods is not fulfilled, the instant movable property shall belong to the Plaintiff, and if the obligation to pay the goods is not fulfilled, it is impossible to raise an objection despite taking measures to collect the goods, and there is no evidence to prove that D paid the goods to the Plaintiff in full.

Thus, according to the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s movable property of this case.