1. The Defendant’s repayment contract with Nonparty A’s law firm, Busan Dong-dong, Busan, on April 10, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff, the purpose of which is to conduct facility leasing business, acquired movable properties listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machinery”) selected by A, the lessee of which, from B, KRW 20,00,00,00, from B Company C. On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for facility leasing (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that, between A and A, the location for installation D, the lease period of KRW 36 months, the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,00,000, and the lease amount of KRW 48,468, by setting the lease amount of KRW 48,00.

B. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff delivered the instant machinery to A on June 21, 2013.

C. Meanwhile, on June 10, 2014, the Defendant attached the instant machinery to Changwon District Court No. 2014No. 1637 on the basis of the notarial deed of a contract for debt repayment by means of security by means of transfer, which was prepared by the Busan Dong division of Law Firm, on April 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts, since the owner of the machinery of this case is the lessee, the attachment execution of the machinery of this case by the defendant is illegal as it is against the articles owned by the plaintiff which are not the debtor A.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that since A paid the down payment of KRW 5,00,000 and the lease fees, ownership belongs to A as to that portion.

However, Article 3(2) of the Terms and Conditions of the instant contract provides that “The ownership of the leased property shall be owned by the Plaintiff and the lessee shall have the right to use the leased property,” and Article 5 of the Special Agreement provides that “Although the lessee bears some of the cost of the goods and the cost of the import incidental thereto in connection with the introduction of the leased property, the lessee cannot assert the ownership of the Plaintiff, and the ownership shall be reverted to the Plaintiff in entirety, as the Defendant asserts.”