beta
(영문) 대법원 2016.04.28 2012다19659

부당이득금 반환

Text

The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. In establishing a security right for the so-called aggregate goods, such as inventory goods, goods, and raw materials, which are the object of securing a claim for a certain period of time, a security right can be established to specify the aggregate goods, which are the object of security, by means of the type, place, quantity designation, etc. of the aggregate goods. Therefore, if the contract establishing a security right for the transfer thereof is concluded, it is possible to establish a security right to designate the whole aggregate goods as an object of a property right. Therefore, if the contract establishing a security right for the transfer thereof is concluded, it shall always be effective to the current aggregate goods without losing the identity as one goods even if the individual goods constituting the aggregate are changed or modified. Therefore, in such a case, if the mortgagee acquires the possession of the aggregate goods existing at the time of the contract establishing a security right by means of possession or amendment, the

Even if a separate contract to establish a security interest or an indication of the change in possession does not exist, the effect of the security interest extends to the goods which were brought in later time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu1043, Dec. 27, 198; 98Da47283, Sept. 7, 199). However, even if the person who has created the security interest brings in the goods included in the kinds of goods stipulated in the contract, if such goods are owned by a third party, they cannot be the constituent part of the aggregate goods, which are the object of security interest, and thus, the effect of the security interest does not extend to such goods.

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following.

(1) On July 25, 2007, the Ilgjin Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Ilgjin Shipbuilding”) and the chemical product transport vessel.