[2] In a case where a double transfer contract for a movable property is concluded by the method of a change of possession, whether a double transfer obligee who concluded a contract subsequent to such contract can acquire a right of transfer for security (negative)

[3] The case holding that in case where a contract to establish a double transfer of security for pigs raised in a large amount of money was concluded, the act of double transferee of pigs arbitrarily taking out pigs constitutes larceny

In a case where pigs raised in large quantity at a money company are the object of transfer for collection of pigs, and the increase or decrease is created due to such factors as propagation, death, sale, purchase, etc. of pigs. Thus, even if a mortgagee concludes a separate contract of transfer security right or does not indicate the change of possession each time, the mortgage right becomes effective at all times without losing the identity as a single set of things (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da22858, Nov. 12, 2004). In order to secure a pecuniary obligation, where the debtor transfers the movable to the creditor, and the debtor agrees to continue possession of the movable, the ownership of the movable is merely transferred in trust, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the ownership of the movable becomes the object of transfer for distribution between the creditor and the debtor, but the debtor becomes an unentitled person, and thus, the creditor cannot acquire the right of transfer for transfer by way of transfer for 200 later, the creditor cannot acquire the right of transfer for security by way of transfer for 200.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the circumstances leading up to the conclusion of the contract between Nonindicted Party 1 and (Business Name omitted) and the transaction process between Nonindicted Party 1 and (Business Name omitted), the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of removing pigs, which was an aggregate of 1’s aggregate movable property offered as an object of security, to secure the obligation arising from continuous sales of pigs within the limit of 200 million won, constitutes a contract for removal of pigs (name omitted) on the grounds that Nonindicted Party 1’s act of removing pigs omitted until February 25, 2004, and that Nonindicted Party 1’s act of removing pigs omitted from a notarial deed by the Defendant on September 2, 200, and that the Defendant’s act of removing pigs, which was not a notarial deed, had been known to Nonindicted Party 1’s (business name omitted) and the Defendant’s act of removing pigs, could not be seen to have interfere with the Defendant’s acquisition of ownership on the grounds that the Defendant’s act of removing pigs, as stated on September 2, 200 and other reasons.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is acceptable. It is not only impossible to deem that the defendant's consent was obtained through the administrator and the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2 at the time of removal of pigs, and it cannot be deemed that the non-indicted 1 was authorized to give such consent. At the time, the defendant was aware of the fact that the pigs belongs to the ownership and possession of others, not the defendant. Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles, as

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)