1. The Defendant’s original copy of the judgment with executory power in the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Gaso2421895 against B.

1. The fact that the Defendant seized B’s movable property listed in the attachment attachment list (hereinafter “instant movable property”) on June 22, 2016 based on an executory exemplification of the judgment in the Seoul Central District Court 201Gaso2421895 in the case involving the acquisition of the movable property by transfer. There is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s claim KRW 20,000,000 against B by repaying debt 20,000 against B on behalf of B, and on May 23, 2016, B entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the transfer of ownership and right to dispose of the goods listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “transferable goods”) on the ground that B failed to repay KRW 15,00,000 out of the above debt owed to the Plaintiff, which is one of its own property, to the Plaintiff. In light of the circumstances recognized by the evidence as seen above, the Plaintiff and B have long-standing relationship, and the transfered goods are necessary for the maintenance of the life of B, the transferable goods should be delivered to the Plaintiff by means of the amendment of ownership and right to dispose of them.

In addition, considering the circumstances that have been seized only one month from the date of transfer, it is reasonable to view that the movables listed in 1, 6, and 12 among the movables in this case are included in the list of transferred objects, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that these movables are owned by the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the article Nos. 2 through 5 of the instant movable property was also transferred, but this article is obvious that it was not included in the list of transferred movable property. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

C. Although the defendant asserts that the above transfer and acquisition contract is a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, the above transfer and acquisition contract is not naturally null and void unless the above transfer and acquisition contract is revoked by fraudulent act.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion