1. For movables listed in the Attachment List:

A. The Seoul Central District Court on March 2016 against Defendant A Co., Ltd.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 15, 2016, Defendant A attached the movable property indicated in the Attachment List (hereinafter “instant movable property”) on March 8, 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by Seoul Central District Court No. 2016Da6750545, supra, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016 Decided November 15, 2016.

Defendant B attached the instant movable on April 10, 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the protocol of conciliation of the case involving the name of building No. 2015-17, Seoul Central District Court No. 2017.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Bosch Rexroth Co., Ltd. for the purchase of the instant movable property from Bosch Rexroth Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Bosch Rexroth”), and placed the instant movable property on the security for the remainder of the sale and purchase as a security for the instant movable property.

On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to lease equipment (hereinafter “instant contract”) with C to lease KRW 1760,000 per month the instant movable property, etc., and thereafter C occupied and used the instant movable property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant A’s assertion that the ownership of the movable property of this case in accordance with the Plaintiff’s claim is a directorship. Thus, Defendant A’s assertion that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed because the Plaintiff, not the owner, is not the Plaintiff. However, as seen below, Defendant A’s objection to the lawsuit by a third party is sufficient if it is a right to prevent the transfer or delivery of the subject matter of execution, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff has such right. Thus, Defendant A’s objection to this lawsuit is without merit.

3. The cause of the action of a third party’s objection to the determination of the cause of the action is not limited to ownership, but to the extent that it is a right to prevent the transfer or delivery of an executory subject matter, and the subject matter of the action is owned by the executory obligor.