1. On the basis of the executory payment order of the Incheon District Court 2017 tea5702 case against C, the Defendant is based on the executory payment order of the Incheon District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 18, 2018, based on the executory payment order in the Incheon District Court 2017 tea5702 case, the Defendant seized corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) under the Suwon District Court 2017No7400, based on the executory payment order of the Incheon District Court 2017 tea 5702 case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff acquired the instant movable property indicated in No. 3 of the Attachment List prior to the instant compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant movable property”), and thus, the instant compulsory execution against the instant movable property should be denied.

(2) Since the Plaintiff did not lend money to Defendant C as security for the instant movable property, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff had the right to transfer security for the instant movable property is without merit.

B. If a security agreement on a movable property is concluded, and the mortgagee has received delivery by means of possession revision, even before completing the liquidation procedure, the mortgagee is not entitled to use and benefit from the collateral, but may exercise his/her right by asserting that he/she is the owner of the collateral in relation to a third party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da44739 Decided August 26, 1994). In full view of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including numbers, if any) and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness C, the Plaintiff and C transfer the ownership of the instant movable property to the Plaintiff by means of an amendment to occupy and use the said movable property in order to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 150 million, which C assumed against the Plaintiff. However, the said contract was signed by a notary public as to the said movable property transfer agreement with the intent to use and benefit from the said movable property free of charge, and on the same day, a notary public notarial deed as the E-legal deed No. 520 on September 18, 2017.