1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

In a case where a contract to establish a security for transfer is entered into for the purpose of transferring a security for a movable to be incorporated in a certain place in a lump sum of several movables, it is a matter of the interpretation of the contract to establish a security for transfer of a movable property, in which the specific movable is considered as an object of transfer, and whether the movable which changes in a group of movables is regarded as an object of transfer of a security for transfer of a movable property, and whether such movable is regarded as an object of transfer of a security for transfer of a movable property. In a case where the contract to establish a security for transfer of a movable is for a long period of time and is not in the process of processing or distribution, and each movable is specified as a name, performance, size, manufacturer, serial number, etc., of the movable property, in principle, it shall be deemed that a contract is an object of transfer of a security for transfer of a movable property to be incorporated in the future, and in order to incorporate the movable property to be incorporated in the future

The lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) on May 15, 2007, the Defendant: (b) borrowed KRW 675 million from the Plaintiff to transfer the instant facilities located in the Ansan Factory as collateral to the Plaintiff by means of an occupancy or amendment; (c) on April 24, 2009, the Nonparty Company acquired the Defendant’s loan from the Defendant’s Intervenor, and (d) established a factory mortgage including movable property located in Pyeongtaek-si Factory; and (d) transferred all facilities including the instant facilities to Pyeongtaek-si Factory on September 27, 2010 after transferring the facilities to Pyeongtaek-si Factory; and (e) obtained additional loans from the Intervenor on September 27, 2010, by adding the remaining movable property on the factory mortgage list.

Furthermore, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s third party of this case’s movable property (which was originally installed in Pyeongtaek Factory, or which was newly installed after replacing or selling the instant facilities) in light of the following: (a) it is not only possible to specify the object as a unit of movable property from time to time due to its name, performance, size, manufacturer, manufacturing number, etc.; and (b) it is difficult to regard the object as a group of movable property from time to time; and (c) the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company, upon entering into the instant security transfer agreement, specified the object as “facility name, quantity, specifications and capacity, manufacturer, and date and time of installation”; and (d) it cannot be deemed that the object to be incorporated in the future can be distinguished from that of other goods of the Nonparty company, notwithstanding Article 10 of the instant security transfer agreement, etc., which appears to have taken the form of the instant security transfer agreement, based on its determination that the effect of the instant security transfer agreement is limited to a specified facility, and thus, cannot be recognized as identical to the instant facility.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles in light of the records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below was just in holding that the contract of the transfer of security of this case was effective since it was an object identical to some of the facilities of this case as to a smoke storage tank, a transformerr test equipment, and a fire fighter, among the movable property of this case by integrating the adopted evidence. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not exhaust all necessary deliberations or did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle

3. Conclusion

All appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)