1. From March 6, 2018 to August 22, 2018, the Defendant: (a) KRW 297,943 to the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 5% per annum, and from August 23, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 26, 2015, the Defendant and B drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 712 issued by a notary public No. 712, 2015, to the effect that the Defendant loaned KRW 32 million to B as of December 31, 2015 at the time of repayment (hereinafter “instant loan”). In the event that B fails to timely repayment thereof, the Defendant and B drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. B did not timely repay the instant loan, on November 2017, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution with respect to corporeal movables listed in the separate auction list (this Court Decision 2017No2413).

On January 11, 2018, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 5,292,285, out of KRW 10,170,000 of the successful bid price for corporeal movables as stated in the attached auction list, and KRW 4,035,435, respectively, in the distribution procedure of the above compulsory execution procedure (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution procedure”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the corporeal movables listed in the attached auction list of the Plaintiff’s assertion, one set of the five scood type Nos. 5 and one set of the two scood type Nos. 6 and 7 destroyed and damaged by the No. 6 (hereinafter “the gold penalty of this case”) is the property owned by the Plaintiff transferred from B on October 22, 2017.

Although the Plaintiff made it clear that the gold punishment of this case was owned by the Plaintiff during the compulsory execution procedure of this case, the Defendant neglected it and proceeded with the above compulsory execution procedure, thereby causing the Plaintiff to lose ownership of the gold punishment of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 22,170,000,00, at least within the limit of KRW 74,200,00 in the market price of the gold-type in this case, which is the secured claim of the security right held by the Plaintiff in relation to the gold-type.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. (1) Whether the instant gold punishment belongs to the Plaintiff or not.