1. A notary public for Defendant B to a medical corporation C, No. 4274, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 20, 2018, the E’s agent acquired the ownership of the said corporeal movables (hereinafter “corporeal movables acquired by the Plaintiff”) by being awarded a successful bid at the auction procedure for corporeal movables as the highest price buyer at the district court 2017No2186 regarding corporeal movables listed in attached Table 2 owned by a medical corporation C (hereinafter “C”).

B. E sold corporeal movables acquired by the Plaintiff to G, and G sold them again to the Plaintiff on February 23, 2018.

C. On February 23, 2018, the Plaintiff leased corporeal movables acquired by the Plaintiff to C by setting the lease period from February 23, 2018 to February 23, 2023.

On June 21, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution against C’s corporeal movables owned by a medical corporation based on a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed”) with the former District Court of Jeonju (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”). On June 21, 2018, the Defendant conducted compulsory execution against C’s corporeal movables listed in attached Table 3 of possession of a medical corporation under the Jeonju District Court 2018No107, 2018 No. 1133 (Concurrent) (hereinafter “corporeal movables seized by the Defendant”).

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the attached 4, 5, 7 through 12, 14 through 20, 25 through 29 corporeal movables (the same as the attached corporeal movables listed in the attached 1; hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) among the corporeal movables seized by the Defendant, and thus, a compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables based on the instant notarial deed is unlawful.

B. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by raising an objection against compulsory execution that is in violation of a third party’s ownership or right to prevent transfer or transfer of the subject matter of enforcement, which is a ground for objection.