1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of litigation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the grounds of the claim are stated in Paragraph 1 of this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance: Provided, That each of the pertinent parts’ “D” or “D” shall be deemed to be each of the “Plaintiff’s Intervenor.”

Therefore, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. 1) The Defendant asserts that, on September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim as it purchased and occupied the instant high-tension pumps from the Intervenor on September 19, 2012. However, barring any special circumstance, in a case where the obligor transferred his/her movable property to the obligee in order to secure a monetary obligation, delivers it to the obligee by means of possession revision, and the obligor agreed to continue to occupy it, the ownership of the movable property is merely a transfer in trust to the obligee, barring any special circumstance. However, in the internal relationship between the obligee and the obligor, the obligor holds the ownership, but the obligor in an external relationship is merely an unentitled person who has already transferred the ownership of the movable property to the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37430, Feb. 18, 2005). As such, the third party who acquired the object of transfer from the obligor, a non-entitled person, cannot lawfully acquire the ownership, unless it is acknowledged.

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the Defendant purchased the high pressure pumps of this case from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, even if the Plaintiff’s Intervenor purchased the high pressure pumps of this case from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, on June 29, 2009, since the Plaintiff’s Intervenor had already provided the high pressure pumps of this case as security for transfer to the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund.

Even if this constitutes acquisition from an unentitled person, it is recognized that the high-tension pumps of this case were acquired in good faith.