1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution of 2016 Chicago5104, January 2017.

1. On March 14, 2013, SIMD Co., Ltd. received a decision on commencing the rehabilitation procedure (2012 Gohap31) and received a decision on October 31, 2013 to authorize the rehabilitation plan on the same day, B was appointed as a custodian of the said company (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Company”).

The Defendant filed a claim for the price of goods against the rehabilitation company (U.S. District Court Decision 2015Na4359), and the appellate court (U.S. District Court Decision 2015Na2880) rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation as of July 14, 2016, stating that “the rehabilitation company shall pay 15 million won to the Defendant,” and the above ruling became final and conclusive as is because the Defendant and the rehabilitation company did not raise any objection.

However, as the rehabilitation company did not pay the above money, the defendant applied for compulsory execution with the above decision of recommending reconciliation as the executive title. On December 14, 2016 at the place of business of the rehabilitation company, the execution officer belonging to this court attached the "Sonics 1 unit", "Plastic 1 unit", "ULTRASON 1 unit" and "KG 1 unit" respectively.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that among the four parts of the machinery attached upon the defendant's application for compulsory execution (hereinafter "the machinery of this case"), "Sonics", "Plastic Welves", and "ULTRASOIC", each of which comes into a cryp, and "KG" are golding. Since the plaintiff purchased from the rehabilitation company and acquired ownership, the defendant's compulsory execution against the machinery of this case should be denied.

Article 18(1) and Article 3 of the Agreement (Evidence A) provide that “The transfer of real rights to movable property shall take effect upon delivery of the movable property” (Article 188(1) and “The rehabilitation company shall deliver the machinery of this case on the date designated by the plaintiff and the date of transfer and takeover shall be determined by the plaintiff.”