1. For movables listed in the separate sheet:

A. The defendant A's law firm in relation to the macro-safety glass Co., Ltd.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 22, 2016, Defendant A attached movable property listed in the separate sheet on December 22, 2016, based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed, No. 172, which is an executory power of No. 172, which is a law firm in relation to Shoan glass Corporation.

B. Defendant B attached the movable property indicated in the attached list on December 22, 2016, based on the executory payment order authentic from the Incheon District Court Decision 2016Da1535, the Busan District Court Decision 2010, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si.

C. Some of the movables listed in the attached list are the Plaintiff’s ownership, and the remainder was acquired by means of the Plaintiff’s occupation revision.

[Ground for Recognition] Defendant A: The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, and 3-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the movables listed in the separate sheet are deemed to be owned by the plaintiff or to have acquired the right of security by means of the alteration of possession by the plaintiff, and thus, it can be asserted that the defendant is the owner of the third party (if the security right holder entered into a security agreement for movable property and received the delivery by means of the alteration of possession, even before completing the liquidation procedure, even if the security right holder did not have the right to use and benefit from the collateral, but in a relationship with a third party, he/she may claim that the property is the owner of the property and exercise his/her right). Compulsory execution against

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.