1. (1) The executive force of Defendant A, No. 686, 2014, No. 1603, 2015, and No. 114, 2015, shall be enforced by a notary public;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 28, 2014, with respect to movables listed in Articles 3, 16, and 18 of the [Attachment] List No. 3, 16, and 18, the Plaintiff engaged in financial business and facility leasing business entered into a contract for facility leasing that the Plaintiff owns the said movables’s ownership on July 17, 2015, and lends the said movables to the beneficial Heavy Industries, while purchasing the said movables from the mechanical retail business operator D.

B. However, Defendant A, a creditor of the Hysung Heavy Industries, seized movables listed in [Attachment 2 and 3] on November 29, 2016 based on the authentic copy of an executory deed No. 686, 2014, No. 1603, and No. 114, 2015, which was a notary public, based on the authentic copy of an executory deed No. 614, No. 686, Dec. 20, 2016. Likewise, Defendant B and C, a creditor of the Hysung Heavy Heavy Industries, a notary public, seized movables listed in [Attachment] No. 15 through 18, based on the authentic copy of an executory deed No. 614, Dec. 20, 2016. Defendant B, a notary public, based on the authentic copy of an executory deed No. 346, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 7 (including virtual number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of movable property listed in the separate sheet and lent the said movable property to the beneficial Heavy Industries, and the ownership of the said movable remains to the Plaintiff, so compulsory execution, such as the seizure of the said movable property, by the Defendants, shall not be permitted.

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