Claim of a mortgagee of movable property to deliver the object to a third party;

Since a mortgagee of movable property may exercise his/her ownership externally, he/she may immediately seek the delivery of the movable property to a third party, and the conclusion is not different in relation to a third party by securing a continuous transaction relationship arising at present and in the future.

Article 372 of the Civil Act

Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na1369 delivered on December 18, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant, etc.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on evidence, that the plaintiff bank entered into a security agreement on the instant movable property owned by the same company between the Songwon Trade Co., Ltd. and continued possession of the said movable property, and the non-party company continued to possess the said movable property by way of the so-called possession revision, and that the above non-party company's obligation to the plaintiff bank was transferred to 117,139,741 won in total around September 1984, and that the market price of the instant movable property was 13,320,000 won in total at the time of appraisal at the time of the appraisal and the closing of argument of this case at the time of the argument of this case. Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that there is no misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

The second point shall be considered as the reason.

If the security contract for transfer of the instant movable property was concluded as legitimately admitted by the court below, the Plaintiff bank can exercise its ownership externally. Therefore, it is legitimate for the court below to order the Defendants, a third party, to deliver the instant movable property based on this order, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the transfer of security

In addition, the conclusion does not vary in relation to the relationship with the Defendants, a third party, by securing continuous business relations that arise in the present and future.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

I examine the third ground for it.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the assertion that the Defendants acquired the movables of this case in good faith by recognizing that the Plaintiff bank was aware of the fact that the security contract was concluded between the Plaintiff bank and the above non-party company, and that the Plaintiff bank was aware of the fact that it was delivered or was not aware of the fact due to negligence by the method of possession amendment. Thus, the court below did not have any permit in the preparation of evidence which was conducted to acknowledge the above facts. There is no reason to

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.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)