1. The judgment of the Gwangju District Court 2012Kao-115 amount of the costs of lawsuit against the Defendants, Korea-Japan.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around August 2013, So-called "Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as "Korea Co., Ltd.") entered into a contract to sell the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "instant articles"), corporeal movables, to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "instant sales contract"), and the Plaintiff paid the purchase price by October 7, 2013.

B. When entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff continued to possess and use the instant goods by Korea-Japan.

C. On July 10, 2014, the Defendants, based on the executory exemplification of the Gwangju District Court 2012Kaba-115, issued a seizure enforcement of the instant goods by this Court No. 2014No3439, Jul. 10, 2014 (hereinafter “instant enforcement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 5 to 9, witness C's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above determination, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the So-called So-called So-gu, the owner of the instant goods, and received delivery of the said goods from the So-called So-called "Korean Government" (Article 189 of the Civil Act provides that where the transferor continues to possess the said movables by a contract between the parties, where the transferor transfers the real right to movable property, the transferee shall be deemed to have received delivery of the said movable property). Accordingly, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant goods.

As claimed by the Defendants, after the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant goods, the So-called Soksan transferred the possession of the instant goods to D Company.

or between the D Company and the D Company have attempted to conclude a sales contract for the instant goods.

Even if such circumstance alone does not lead to the loss of ownership of the instant goods already acquired by the Plaintiff.

Thus, the legitimate owner of the article of this case shall Soknae.