1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Attached Form

Each of the movables indicated in the list (hereinafter “instant movables”) was owned by Nonparty B, and the fact that the Defendant, based on the authentic copy of the statement stated in the purport of the claim, conducted compulsory execution on February 23, 2015, is without dispute between the parties, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant movables from Nonparty B before the seizure and acquired the ownership thereof, and thus, the enforcement of the seizure of the instant movables is unlawful.

On the other hand, the transfer of ownership of the movable takes effect in addition to the agreement on the transfer of the movable, that is, the transfer of possession of the movable, and whether the transfer of the movable takes effect should be evaluated as the actual possession of the transferor's manager of the object in light of the social concept and the transfer of the movable to the control of the transferee while maintaining the identity.

(2) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with B to purchase KRW 4,700,000 with respect to the instant movable on December 30, 2014 and paid the said amount by January 8, 2014. However, inasmuch as the instant movable is still running the business, the Plaintiff agreed to deliver the said movable on February 9, 2015 without delivery of the said movable, but thereafter, continued to occupy the said movable on February 23, 2015 without delivery of the said movable.

As shown in the above facts, since the possession of the instant movable at the time of the above compulsory execution was not yet possessed by B, the transferor, and the Plaintiff did not deliver it to the Plaintiff, the possession of the instant movable cannot be deemed to have been transferred to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the said movable

Therefore, compulsory execution on February 23, 2015, which was filed by the Defendant with respect to the instant movable, was conducted against the movable owned by the obligor B.