(a) Whether to create a security right to all the aggregate goods as a property right (affirmative);

B. Establishment and possession of the so-called right to collateral security for aggregate goods

A. In the case of a contract to establish a security interest in the so-called aggregate article, such as inventory goods, goods, and raw materials, in which such aggregate article can be specified by means of the type, place, quantity designation, etc. of the subject movable property, the security interest can be created as a property right that sets the whole aggregate article as a property right.

B. If a contract to establish a security interest in a collection is made as above, the effect of the security interest shall always always extend to the collection at present, without losing the identity of the individual items constituting the collection even if the contract is changed or modified. Therefore, in such a case, even if a mortgagee obtains possession of the collection existing at the time of the contract to establish a security interest by occupying and amending the collection, it is not necessary to conclude a separate contract to establish a security interest or indicate an alteration in possession at each time even if the mortgagee carried in the collection of individual items constituting the collection.

Articles 189 and 372 of the Civil Act, Article 42 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu941 Decided October 25, 1988 87Nu946 Decided December 27, 1988

Chungcheongnam Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee and four others

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu563 delivered on October 15, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the case of a contract to establish a security interest in the so-called aggregate article, such as inventory goods, goods, and raw materials, in order to take such aggregate article into consideration as a single object for a certain period of time, the establishment of a security interest in the whole aggregate article as a property right can be made if it can be specified by means of the type, place, quantity designation, etc. of such aggregate article. Therefore, if the contract to establish a security interest is made, the effect of the security interest is always on the current aggregate article without losing identity even if the individual article constituting the aggregate is changed or modified, even if it is changed or modified, if the person who established the security interest takes possession of the aggregate article existing at the time of the contract to establish the security interest, it is not necessary to establish a separate contract to establish a security interest in the transfer or indicate the change of possession (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu941, Oct. 25, 198).

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's taxation disposition of this case, based on the premise that the plaintiff bank is a mortgagee against the non-party company, is just in holding that the plaintiff bank is not entitled to a security interest, unless there are special circumstances that the plaintiff bank should make double contracts between the non-party company and the non-party company, since it is a set of raw materials, etc. in the judgment of the court below, which had already been made between the non-party Korean commercial bank and the non-party company, and the fact that it had already been made the object of a security for transfer, was legally confirmed, and as such, the plaintiff bank cannot legally acquire the security interest after the above Korean commercial bank was concluded with the non-party company. It did not err in the misunderstanding of legal principles

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)