1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the instant lawsuits, the computers listed in attached Table 20 shall be included in the attached Table.

1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows: (a) except for the fact that the court considers “corporeal movables recorded in the list of the first instance judgment 20 pages of the second instance judgment as “corporeal movables listed in the list of the attached Forms 1 through 19 and 21”, the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) therefore, it

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, on August 9, 2016, the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet are transferred for security and lent KRW 12 million to C, and that the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet are one’s own ownership and are not subject to compulsory execution on August 16, 2016.

B. (1) We examine the legality of the suit on the computer listed in the separate sheet No. 20, ex officio whether the suit on the computer listed in the separate sheet No. 20, is lawful.

While the Defendant’s seizure of the instant corporeal movables in the case of seizure of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant seizure”) in Gwangju District Court No. 2017No. 1629, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the seizure was executed on the computers listed in [Attachment 20] No. 20.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on this part is unlawful, since there is no interest in the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking the denial of compulsory execution against the said computer.

(2) First of all, as to the determination of the claim for the instant corporeal movables, we examine whether the Plaintiff established a security right to the instant corporeal movables and lent KRW 12 million to C, and according to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff and C’s notary public’s statement stated in the evidence No. 908 of 2016, stating that “A transferred the corporeal movables as indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff by means of possession amendment in order to secure its payment, while lending KRW 12 million to C (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”).