1. The Defendant has the enforcement force of the judgment of the Suwon District Court rendered on October 20, 2017, with respect to Suwon District Court Decision 2017Gahap884 Decided October 20, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff loaned to B, on September 24, 2012, the interest rate of KRW 18% per annum, and from December 30, 2017 to December 30, 2019, that KRW 100 million shall be paid in installments each year. On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 12% per annum, the due date from December 31, 2016 to December 2020, the amount of KRW 90 million shall be paid in installments, respectively.

B. At each time of the above lending, the Plaintiff created a security for transfer on the articles owned B including movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the movable property of this case”) from B by means of an occupancy amendment in order to secure a loan claim at each time, and received a notarial deed of a cash loan contract for each transfer-backed security (No. 968, 2012, No. 140, No. 968, 2016).

C. On July 20, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of KRW 443,067,022 of the goods price and damages for delay with the Suwon District Court rendered a favorable judgment on October 20, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant final judgment”) d.

Accordingly, on January 10, 2018, based on the original copy of the final judgment of this case with executory power, the Defendant executed the seizure of the movable property of this case as the Goyang-gu District Court 2017No4616.

(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the instant movable owned B had already been provided as security for transfer to the plaintiff, the relationship with the third party execution creditor belongs to the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the execution of the instant movable by the defendant with respect to the above movable shall be dismissed.

3. The defendant's assertion 1 is limited to Article 1 of the mark processing machine among the movable property of this case owned by the plaintiff B.