1. The defendant strengthening and distributing the defendant corporation, and the notary public against B, in the preparation of the law office North Eastern Law Firm, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for corporeal movables listed in the attached seizure list owned by a stock company, which was located at the 62-10 (gold villages) from the sowing-si, Yellow Crona 62-10 (gold villages) at the auction procedure for corporeal movables (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”).

B. However, on August 25, 2015, the Defendant seized the instant corporeal movables based on the No. 201 of the No. 2015, a notary public against B, on the basis of a notarial deed No. 201 of the North Korean Joint Law Office No. 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the corporeal movables of this case are owned by the plaintiff, the defendant's compulsory execution against them shall not be permitted unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff cannot acquire the ownership of the instant corporeal movables on April 10, 2014, on the grounds that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for reinforcement and distribution of the instant corporeal movables and construction before a successful bid, and acquired the ownership of the instant corporeal movables by possession and amendment to secure payment for the construction cost.

In a case where a movable property owned by a person other than the debtor was sold by auction, the successful bidder who received the auction price after receiving the movable property at the auction procedure shall acquire the ownership in good faith, barring any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da32680, Mar. 27, 1998). Thus, at the time of the plaintiff's auction of the corporeal movable property at the auction procedure, the corporeal movable property in this case was owned by the defendant, not a reinforced distribution company.

Even if the plaintiff acquired it in good faith, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.