1. On March 16, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hu671, March 16, 2015) ordered the order of the preservation for collection under the Ordinance of the Order of the Preservation for Collection.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff who is found guilty of the party relationship and B is the head of B.

B was sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months, 3 years of the suspended execution, and 40 million won, additional collection of 14,575,342 won due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery).

(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Ra1453 Decided June 5, 2015). However, after the judgment was reversed in the appellate court, the sentence of KRW 150,000,000,000 was sentenced to imprisonment for five years, a fine of KRW 150,000,000 (Seoul High Court Decision 2015No1799, Dec. 24, 2015) and the final appeal was dismissed (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do644, Mar. 24, 2016).

Upon the request of the prosecutor on March 16, 2015, the court issued the Seoul Central District Court's order of preservation for collection (Seoul Central District Court 2015 seconds671) on the apartment in the attached list in the name of the plaintiff (the apartment in which the plaintiff resides; hereinafter "the apartment in this case").

The provisional attachment registration was completed on March 30, 2015 by the defendant's execution of the order of preservation for collection on the apartment of this case by the Jung-gu District Court's High Court's receipt of the High Court's High Court's High Court's High District Court'

(hereinafter referred to as “execution of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap 1-4 (including all of the serial numbers), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's apartment of this case is not the plaintiff's title trust from B, but the plaintiff's purchase of the apartment of this case with the plaintiff's funds.

The execution of this case shall not be permitted as being carried out on the goods owned by others.

B. In the interrogation of suspect conducted in the presence of counsel, Defendant B stated that the apartment of this case was sold in the name of the principal, but he and his wife D, even though the apartment of this case was sold in the name of the principal.

B and the defense counsel did not dispute the ownership relationship of the apartment of this case in the collection preservation case.

Since the actual owner of the apartment of this case was B, the execution of this case is executed.