The criteria for determining whether to specify the collateral and the scope of the object in a contract establishing security for the creation of security for the aggregate of movable property which changes once;

Article 372 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2002Da72385 delivered on March 14, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 992)

Mez Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt Jinse Shipbuilding Corporation

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheonghae, Attorneys Seo-ho et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Busan High Court Decision 2012Na2361 decided August 28, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the other hand, in the case of the so-called contract to establish a security for collateral for the so-called collective object which takes the change in the value of a movable property as a single object, it is necessary to specify the subject matter in order to prevent any damage to the third party by clarifying the scope of the effect of the security for collateral and to clarify legal relationship in advance so that the execution procedure is not unfairly delayed. Thus, the subject matter must be identified externally and objectively by means of the type of the contract on the type, place, quantity, etc. of the object so that it can be distinguished from other objects, and the specific subject matter and the scope of the subject matter should be determined specifically by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the whole contents of the contract on the type, place, quantity, etc. of the object, the intent of the party to the contract, the nature of the subject matter, the management and use method of the collateral (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da72385, Mar. 14, 2003, etc.).

The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that, after compiling the evidence adopted in its judgment and finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, it did not constitute acquiring movable property as stated in the attached list attached to the judgment below with the money withdrawn from the advance account of this case, and that, even if Jin Shipbuilding acquired the said movable property with the money withdrawn from the advance account of this case managed by the Plaintiff, it could not simply specify the object of the instant transfer security contract based on the source of purchase fund.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the nature of money, the specific object of security for transfer, etc., or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and logical

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

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)