1. The Defendant has the power to execute the payment order in the Changwon District Court, Kimhae-si Court, 2014 tea 2054.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 8, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Changwon District Court Decision 2014Da2054 (hereinafter “Seoul High Court Decision 2014Da2054 (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

The payment order was finalized after August 19, 2014.

B. On September 25, 2014, the Defendant seized corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) and started auction upon the instant payment order.

C. However, the Plaintiff did not receive construction cost of KRW 135 million, while dismantling, remodeling, and installing a machine of 10 tons, including the corporeal movables in this case.

Accordingly, on August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff changed the name of the machinery and equipment, including the instant corporeal movables, to the Plaintiff; however, by March 31, 2015, the leather paid rent to the Plaintiff by March 31, 2015; and on March 31, 2015, when the leather did not pay the construction cost of KRW 135 million, the Plaintiff prepared a written agreement to the effect that it may be disposed of by the Plaintiff, and received a notarial deed thereon.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff concluded a transfer contract with a leather for the mechanical equipment including the instant corporeal movables, and deemed to have taken over the said mechanical equipment by the method of possession revision.

If a security contract for movable property has been concluded and the mortgagee has been transferred by the method of possession alteration, even before the liquidation procedure has been completed, the mortgagee may claim that the mortgagee is the owner of the relevant property in a relationship with the third party and exercise his/her right.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da44739 delivered on August 26, 1994, etc.). Accordingly, in this case, the Plaintiff may assert against the Defendant that he is the owner of the instant corporeal movables.

B. The defendant's assertion