1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2013, the Defendant purchased the articles listed in the attached Table 2 list (hereinafter “instant machinery”) in the land listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant land”) from Seojin Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sajin”) and paid KRW 350 million in total as down payment and intermediate payment around that time.

At the time, the Defendant taken out the instant machinery from the instant land and paid the remainder of KRW 40 million, and the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the ownership of the instant machinery to the Defendant at the time of the receipt of the remainder.

B. However, on June 24, 2009, the transfer of the above sales contract to A, etc., a village resident in the vicinity of the instant land, which had already been provided the instant machinery as security for transfer.

The Co., Ltd. used the instant machinery in order to extract aggregate from the instant land, and A et al., etc. received a transfer security by means of an alteration of possession on the instant machinery as security for the damages of KRW 500,000,000, which may be caused by the extraction of aggregate.

A, etc. interfere with the Defendant’s removal of the instant machinery, and the Defendant did not receive or take out the instant machinery, and accordingly, did not pay the balance to the Bank of Korea.

C. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the prohibition of interference with the delivery and removal of the instant machinery (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Gahap1582) against the Seogju District Court and A, etc.

On July 9, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the defendant's claim for delivery to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. on the ground that "the defendant, who is merely a purchaser, has no title to seek the exclusion of disturbance against A, etc. who is a mortgagee, and cannot be deemed to have extinguished the secured claim of the collateral security right."

The defendant appealed against this, and the Gwangju High Court of Appeals.