1. The defendant's Suyang Branch of the Suwon District Court for the non-party C's non-party corporation 2014dan17501

1. Basic facts

A. On December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into and leased the following lease agreements with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 501:

Article 2 In the lease contract for the above real estate, the lessee shall pay the deposit and rent as follows:

1. Deposit: All the office fixtures;

2. The rent: The monthly rent shall be 1,300,000 won and shall be paid at the 24th of each month.

3. Management expenses: 200,000 won per month, and 24th of each month.

Article 3 Duration Lease shall be transferred to the lessee by December 1, 2014 in a condition that the above real estate can be used for the purpose of the lease, and the lease period shall be from the date of delivery to November 30, 2015 (12 months).

The ownership of the office fixtures in the special agreement shall be owned by the lessor, and shall be leased including all the office fixtures.

In addition, in principle, return to the original state at the time the lease is terminated later.

B. On the other hand, on December 30, 2014, the Defendant: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment claiming the remainder of the signboards (No. 2014Gadan17501), attached the attached list (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) to the Suwon District Court Branch of the Suwon District Court on December 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, upon entering into a lease agreement with C, C, a lessee, agreed to purchase the instant corporeal movables as owned by the lessor, and the Plaintiff possessed the instant corporeal movables to secure the lease deposit. Therefore, the instant corporeal movables are deemed as owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s execution of seizure should be denied.

The defendant's corporeal movables in this case cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's possession of the movables kept in C's office. Thus, the execution of seizure by the defendant is conducted by the defendant.