1. The Defendant’s substitution of the executory conciliation of the instant case against Nonparty C, the lower court’s 2014 money3051.

1. Basic facts

A. In this case involving the Defendant and Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), a decision in lieu of conciliation that the Nonparty Company would pay money to the Defendant on September 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant decision”), was rendered on October 2, 2014. The instant decision became final and conclusive on October 2, 2014.

B. On January 20, 2015, the Defendant, based on the instant decision, issued a seizure execution (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) with respect to corporeal movables, including office fixtures, including each of the items listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant items”) in the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Building (hereinafter “D building”) at the seat of the headquarters of a sub-committee company, as indicated in the instant decision, on January 20, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 18 and 19, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the corporeal movables attached by the defendant are owned by the plaintiff, not the non-party company, compulsory execution against the instant corporeal movables should be denied.

The defendant asserts that the goods of this case were donated to the non-party company since the non-party company was used without compensation at its head office.

B. According to each of the records in Gap evidence Nos. 1-17, we can find the fact that the plaintiff purchased the instant goods.

Furthermore, according to each of the records of evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2 as to whether the Plaintiff donated the instant goods to the Nonparty Company, the fact that the representative director E concurrently held office as the representative director of the Nonparty Company until August 11, 2014 can be recognized.

However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff donated the instant goods to the non-party company, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence No. 20-23, Eul evidence No. 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.