1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On November 10, 2015, this Court shall have regard to cases of application for suspension of compulsory execution under 2015 Chicago89.

1. Basic facts

A. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the decision of performance recommendation rendered by the Incheon District Court 2015da3585, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution against the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machine”) with the Incheon District Court Branch 2015da2913 on the basis of multi-building design (hereinafter “multi-building design”).

B. Accordingly, on September 2, 2015, the enforcement officer of the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branched the instant machinery in Kimpo-si C, Kimpo-si, 2015.

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”) . [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant machinery owned multiple architectural designs, but D purchased on August 18, 2015, which was prior to the instant compulsory execution, and acquired its ownership. 2) After August 31, 2015, the instant machinery became owned by the Plaintiff from the ownership of D by completing the registration of incorporation.

3) Therefore, the instant compulsory execution against the instant machinery owned by the Plaintiff is unfair, and thus, should be dismissed. (B) According to the written evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 5, D and multi-building design was concluded on August 17, 2015 with respect to the instant machinery as a sale security for the supply of KRW 30 million leased by D as to the instant machinery; accordingly, D transferred KRW 30 million to multi-building design on August 18, 2015; and as the Plaintiff was established on August 31, 2015; and D and assumed office as the Plaintiff’s representative director on September 7, 2015.

2. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, D’s ownership of the instant machinery is not naturally transferred from D to the Defendant only by reason of having become the representative director of the Plaintiff, and the sales contract between D and the Plaintiff with respect to the instant machinery, and the resolution of purchase by the Plaintiff is subject to compulsory execution.