1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the plaintiff makes a new decision as to the new argument at the trial of the court of first instance pursuant to paragraph (2). Therefore, this shall be quoted

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to deny compulsory execution for the following reasons.

1) The instant movable property is owned by the Plaintiff since it was consistent with the construction of a factory building owned by the Plaintiff. 2) The instant movable property was transferred to B by the Plaintiff, and its transfer is null and void as it is a false declaration of conspiracy.

B. 1) As to the assertion related to conformity, in order to recognize that a movable is consistent with real estate under Article 256 of the Civil Act, the determination should be made by taking into account the following factors: (a) whether the movable is attached and/or attached to an extent that it is impossible to separate the movable without incurring excessive expenses; and (b) whether the existing real estate can be an object of transaction separate with economic utility and independent from existing real estate in terms of its physical structure, use and function

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the movable property of this case is deemed to be established in a factory building located in the Plaintiff’s possession of the Plaintiff, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 21 and Nos. 25, 2003Da14959, 14966, May 16, 2003; and Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da15602, Sept. 24, 2009; 2009Da15602, Sept. 24, 2009). However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as evidence Nos. 20 and 28, is insufficient to recognize that the movable property of this case was affiliated with the building of the Plaintiff’s factory, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, B filed an objection against the Defendant on the ground that the movable property of this case was affiliated with the building of the said factory, but it was dismissed (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Da60606).