A. On July 16, 2020, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet E (hereinafter “instant movables”) as the title of execution in the Daejeon District Court’s Daejeon District Court’s Decision 2020Kadan1451 on D’s case of the purchase of goods.

B. On the other hand, on July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30,000,000 to the account under the name of D. On July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D on the transfer and takeover of the instant movable between D and D, with the amount of debt for KRW 3,00,000,000 borrowed from the Plaintiff as well as corresponding thereto, and the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant movable property by means of the occupancy and alteration.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the transfer and takeover of goods to purchase the instant movable property under the pretext of repayment of loan claims held against D on July 20, 2017, and agreed to keep the instant movable property to D by the method of possession and alteration, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff may claim as the owner of the instant movable property against a third party, including the Defendant, barring any special circumstance.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the agreement between the Plaintiff and D was null and void, on the ground that, in light of the following: (a) it is unclear whether a monetary transaction made on July 13, 2017 between the Plaintiff and D constitutes a lending relationship; and (b) the value of corporeal movables at a general family is recognized as a substitute for repayment of payment of KRW 30 million is contrary to the transaction formula; and (c) it does not take the procedure of preparing a notarial deed while establishing a security by means of transfer following the alteration of possession; and (d) it is not sufficient to recognize that the said agreement constitutes an expression of intention or an expression of intent through a false conspiracy; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant movable property is subject to D’s agreement.