1. Attached on March 25, 2015, based on the judgment of the Jeonju District Court 2015Kadan774 on the provisional seizure of corporeal movables against C.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as the Jeonju District Court 2015Kadan774, filed an application for provisional seizure of corporeal movables with the debtor’s claim of KRW 40 million against the debtor C as the preserved claim, and on March 18, 2015, the said court rendered a ruling that “The corporeal movables owned by the debtor located in D, E, and F (hereinafter “instant land”) shall be provisionally seized.”

B. On March 25, 2015, an execution officer delegated by the Defendant failed to meet the debtor, his/her family, and a person living together, but participated in the witness G and H, and seized corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant trees”).

(hereinafter referred to as the "execution of provisional seizure of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff leased the instant land owned by the Plaintiff C and planted trees, and the Plaintiff paid a part of the rent when selling trees.

As such, the trees of this case, which the Plaintiff was planted by leasing land, are owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the execution of provisional seizure on the premise that the trees of this case are owned by C should not be allowed.

B. The trees of this case are owned by Defendant C, and only the Plaintiff is employed to cultivate the trees of this case.

3. In full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 3 through 7, it is recognized that the Plaintiff planted the trees of this case with C’s consent to planting and cultivating trees on the land of this case around 2007, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the above fact-finding.

According to the above facts, the trees of this case are movable properties owned by the plaintiff, who was planted on the land of this case with the consent of C.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deny the execution of provisional seizure of this case since it was conducted on the property owned by a third party, not the property owned by C, the debtor.

4. Conclusion, the claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.