1. The original copy of the judgment with executory power in the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Ghana60297 against B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) signed a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with the content of the transfer of ownership of a movable property indicated in the separate sheet owned B (hereinafter “instant movable property”) owned by B by the method of possession amendment, in order for B to guarantee the repayment of loan obligation of KRW 3 million borrowed from the Plaintiff on February 9, 201, as a notary public C’s No. 575 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) between B and B on May 27, 2016; and (b) entered into a transfer contract with such content as the said agreement (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. On September 17, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B claiming for the amount of money transferred to the Defendant. On September 17, 2015, the Defendant rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Defendant 14,374,551 won and 2,213,969 won with interest of 24% per annum from November 2, 2011 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). C.

The Defendant filed an application for the seizure of movable property with the title of the instant judgment with the Gwangju District Court’s netcheon Branch. On May 2, 2017, the said court rendered a seizure execution as to the instant movable property, which had been in No. 406, 606, 1408, no. 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the event that a security right holder enters into a contract on the security of a movable property and takes over the movable property by means of possession alteration, even before completing the liquidation procedure, it is not possible to claim that the person is the owner of the movable property and exercise his/her right in relation to a third party, although he/she did not have the right to use and benefit from

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da44739 delivered on August 26, 1994, etc.). According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, who acquired the right to transfer security upon delivery of the movable property of this case from B by means of possession revision, has the right to the Defendant as the owner of the movable property of this case.