1. On December 16, 2015, the Defendant’s notary public against Nonparty B was based on the No. 65 of this Act, No. 2015, Dec. 16, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a facility lease agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on the articles listed in the [Attachment List owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant articles”) and delivered the instant articles to the Nonparty Company.

B. The Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution stipulated in Paragraph (1) based on the Notarial Deed No. 65 of 2015 No. 65 of this Act, a notary public prepared between B and B, the representative director of the non-party company, filed an application for compulsory execution on the No. 1 of this Decree. The Seoul Central District Court enforcement officer, on December 16, 2015, carried out the seizure of corporeal movables on the instant objects located there.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s claim is owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s compulsory execution is unreasonable.

B. The compulsory execution of this case is lawful, since the defendant's assertion B was not notified of the fact, and there was no defect in the procedure of the execution of seizure.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the owner of the object of this case is the plaintiff, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed is unlawful on the premise that the object of this case is owned by B.

Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution against the goods of this case shall be improper and shall not be permitted.

B. We examine the defendant's argument, and merely because B did not provide any explanation to the debtor, the illegal compulsory execution against the goods owned by the third party cannot be lawfully assessed. Thus, the defendant's argument is rejected.

4. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.