On March 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 600 million from the victim E; (b) provided approximately KRW 501,406km raw materials at the market price of the instant company owned by the instant company as collateral for transfer; and (c) agreed that the instant company will possess them by means of possession revision; and (d) accordingly, the Defendant had the duty to keep the instant raw materials for the victim as the secured party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the above duties and from March 27, 2013.

7. Until September 29, the company sold the raw materials of this case to the customer, and caused the company of this case to gain property profits equivalent to approximately KRW 900 million at the market price of the said raw materials, which is the price of the said raw materials, and had the victim lose the security value equivalent to the same amount.

2. Determination

A. In order to secure a pecuniary obligation, in a case where a debtor transfers movable property owned by him/her to a creditor, and the debtor has decided to continue possession of movable property by the alteration of possession, barring any special circumstance, the ownership of movable property is merely transferred to the creditor, and thus, the debtor retains ownership in the internal relationship between the creditor and the debtor, but in external relations, the debtor is the unentitled person who already transferred the ownership of the movable property to the creditor. Therefore, even if a contract to establish a security for transfer was concluded between another creditor and the debtor and the transfer by the method of the alteration of possession, the creditor who concluded the contract later cannot acquire the security for transfer, unless the bona fide acquisition is recognized. Thus, the subsequent creditor cannot acquire the security for transfer, and therefore, the debtor cannot acquire the security for transfer.