1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On June 10, 2014, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) created a security right to transfer to the Plaintiff by means of an occupancy revision regarding the machinery and equipment listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “transfer security”).

On June 10, 2014, Defendant D, as the representative of Defendant B, drafted a notarial deed of contract for debt repayment (quasi-loan for consumption) by means of a notary public G office No. 624 on June 10, 2014.

Defendant C and D were married on June 20, 2012 and divorced on May 26, 2015.

Defendant E is between Defendant C and Dong Branch.

The transfer security of this case is currently possessed by Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”).

Defendant E was appointed as an internal director (representative) of Defendant F on August 3, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-19, Eul 1-6, Eul 1-13, witness H and I's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion led to the closure of business from the spring of spring of spring of 2015. Accordingly, Defendant D and E, delegated by Defendant C, the representative director of Defendant B, visited the Plaintiff Company, and consulted on the disposal of the instant transferred property for security and the repayment of the price for the Plaintiff Company’s obligation to the Plaintiff Company.

On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff attempted to enforce the seizure of corporeal movables by the Cheongju District Court 2015No2447, but it was impossible for Defendant D and E to implement the seizure by concealing all machinery and apparatus to the gate with the authority delegated by Defendant B prior to the seizure execution.

On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff attempted to execute a seizure of corporeal movables at the location of Defendant F’s head office as the Changwon District Court 2016No278, but Defendant F’s refusal to execute the execution while occupying and using corporeal movables became impossible.

The Defendants had Defendant F purchased the instant transferred property by falsity and let Defendant F possess and conceal it, thereby hindering the exercise of the Plaintiff’s security right to the said transferred property.