beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s notary public against Nonparty C and D No. 201, No. 2015, 201.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to Nonparty C residing in Gangdong-gu, Seoul, 506 Dong 702, and on September 3, 2015, in order to secure the repayment of the above loan claim, the Plaintiff entered into a security transfer agreement with C on each of the movables listed in the attachment Nos. 1, 3, and 9 (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) owned by the said apartment (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables transfer agreement”) with the Plaintiff by occupying the said movables by amending the ownership (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables transfer agreement”). Accordingly, the said agreement entered into a notarial deed of monetary loan for security (No. 83, 2015 by a notary public).
B. C and D borrowed KRW 50 million from the Defendant, and, on June 12, 2015, drafted a notarial deed for cash consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 2015, No. 2015, stating that “C and D, with the maturity of KRW 50 million from the Defendant on September 10, 2015, borrowed at the rate of KRW 25% per annum, and C and D, with the lapse of interest rate of KRW 25% per annum.”
C. Based on the executory exemplification of the instant notarial deed, the Defendant, on March 31, 2016, conducted compulsory execution against each movable listed in the attached attachment list.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. In the event that a security agreement is concluded on a movable property to determine the cause of a claim, and a mortgagee has received the delivery by means of possession revision, the mortgagee is not entitled to use or benefit from the collateral even before completing the liquidation procedure, but is the owner of the collateral in relation to a third party, and is entitled to exercise his/her right.
(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da44739 delivered on August 26, 1994, etc.). We examine the case back to the instant case, and the Plaintiff.