2. As to the Plaintiff, as to the construction machinery listed in the separate sheet

A. Defendant New ○○○ filed a registration of creation of a collateral security with No. 1119-2005123-23-○○○ on December 23, 2005 (No. 1119-2005123-23-○○○○, which was completed with No. 1119-23-23-23-○○,

B. Defendant Lee ○-○, on December 23, 2005, filed an application number 1119-2005 23-2005 - ○○○○○ on December 23, 2005 (No. 1119-2005 - 23- ○○○, etc.);

C. On December 23, 2005, Defendant Gangnam-gu et al. (hereinafter “Defendant Gangnam-gu”) No. 1119-20060105- ○○○○○○ on December 23, 2005;

D. On December 23, 2005, Defendant ○○○-○○○○ (Deficial mortgage creation registration completed with No. 1119-20060817-17- ○○○○ on December 23, 2005)

The each procedure for the cancellation shall be implemented.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

A. On December 10, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a facility lease agreement with ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○ Construction”) on the construction machinery listed in the attached Form, setting the acquisition cost as KRW 142 million, monthly rent of KRW 2410,000, and KRW 36 months from the date of issuance of the certificate of receipt of the leased object, and interest rate of KRW 24% per annum. Around that time, the Plaintiff received KRW 71 million from ○○○ Construction.

Between the Plaintiff and ○○○ Construction, ownership of the instant construction machinery belongs to the Plaintiff, and ○○ Construction agreed that the instant construction machinery does not have any property right or interest in addition to the right to use the instant construction machinery in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

B. On February 27, 2004, the owner of the instant construction machinery was registered as ○○○○○ Construction, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of collateral security worth KRW 71 million with respect to the instant construction machinery.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant Republic of Korea seized the instant construction machinery on June 28, 2004 based on the value added tax claim against ○○○ Construction.

D. In addition, each of ○○ Basic Construction and mortgage contract was concluded with regard to the construction machinery of this case, Defendant New ○○○ completed each of the registration of creation of a collective security right under the 119-2005123- 23- ○○○○○ on December 23, 2005, which was received on December 23, 2005, and Defendant Lee ○○○○○○ on December 23, 2005, which was received on December 1119-2005, 119-20605-105- ○○○○○○○ on January 5, 2006, and Defendant ○○○○○○ on August 17, 2006, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition]

Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1, 2, 4, and 5: A without dispute, between A and A5, the purport of the entire pleadings and between the Plaintiff and Defendant 3: deemed confession pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

However, if an administrative disposition is null and void as a matter of course, it cannot take effect as an administrative act from the beginning, so the invalidation of the disposition can always be contested anywhere, and the court is not bound by the administrative disposition, and thus it is legitimate to seek the exclusion of the execution of seizure based on the disposition on default, which is null and void as a civil action. Therefore, the above defendant's assertion is groundless.

3. Determination on the merits

Article 33 (1) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that "Where a lessor leases construction machinery or vehicles, etc., he/she may register the ownership of a specific object in the name of a lessee, notwithstanding the Construction Machinery Management Act or the Automobile Management Act." In full view of the characteristics of a facility leasing (lease) that intends to achieve the purpose of security by lending the facility lessee for a certain period of time, and the above relevant legal provisions, even in cases of the facility leasing of construction machinery, the ownership of the leased vehicle is reserved in the facility leasing company. However, in the event of the facility leasing of construction machinery, the ownership of the leased vehicle is presumed to be reserved in the facility leasing company. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the special provisions on the Automobile Management Act are stipulated in the said Act so that the vehicle registration may be made in the name of the lessee who is not the owner of the facility leasing company, and therefore, the ownership of the vehicle registered in the name of the facility leasing user under Article 33 (1) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act shall be deemed to be domestically and externally owned by the facility leasing company (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da407, Apr. 20007.

Therefore, since the construction machinery of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, the execution of the seizure of this case based on the claim against ○○○ Construction shall not be permitted, and the registration of the remaining Defendants’ establishment of collateral security shall be cancelled as the registration of invalidity of cause.

7. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit.