1. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the payment order (No. 2014 tea 10998) issued by the defendant against the defendant A, Incheon District Court on December 2014.

1. A contracting party to the recognition of the facts: Ownership of the article owned by the plaintiff (limited to a right to possess and use the article during the lease period in which the article is held): The place of business of A (B) in the case of a company owned by the plaintiff (limited to a right to occupy and use the article during the lease period in which the article is held).

A. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff, a lessee, entered into a lease agreement with the Duna Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Duna”) on the goods listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machinery”) as follows.

B. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the instant machinery in KRW 300,000,000 from A engaged in the steel-frame manufacturing business with the trade name of “B” and installed the said machinery at A’s workplace (In Mancheon-dong C and Dong), a place designated as the UN land.

C. The Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution against A’s corporeal movables based on the executory exemplification of the payment order issued by the Incheon District Court No. 2014 tea 10998, and the enforcement officer of the Incheon District Court attached the instant machinery to the Incheon District Court No. 2014No12510 on December 29, 2014.

(hereinafter "Compulsory Execution of this case"). 【The grounds for recognition of this case' are stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 5-2, 6 through 8 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the machinery of this case is owned by the plaintiff, compulsory execution of this case based on the premise that the machinery of this case is owned by A cannot be permitted as unlawful.

The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's seizure of the machinery of this case by a lawful compulsory execution by execution officer is impossible, while it is not known that the plaintiff is the owner of the machinery of this case. However, compulsory execution against the machinery of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, can be justified.