1.(a)

On October 10, 2017, the movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list between Co., Ltd and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is classified as the movable property.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 3, 2017, the Defendant filed a claim for the payment of management expenses, etc. with the Incheon District Court 2017Kadan11499 against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and the said court rendered a judgment on April 17, 2018 that “C shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 97,353,452 and 15% per annum from December 9, 2017 to the date of full payment.”

On July 10, 2018, the Defendant seized movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant movable property”) with the title of execution.

B. On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff lent KRW 23 million to C. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff and C drafted an authentic deed of a monetary loan for transfer security with the content that a notary public would accept compulsory execution based on the Plaintiff’s above loan claim, and that the Plaintiff would create a security for transfer to the Plaintiff by means of an occupancy revision for movable property, such as machines, instruments, equipment, and fixtures in the attached Table 2, including the instant movable property (hereinafter “instant contract for transfer security”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

(a) If a security contract for 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 delivered on August 26, 1994, etc.). B.

Examining the above facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff acquired the instant movable on October 10, 2017 by means of possession and alteration. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff executed the seizure of the instant movable property with the executive title against C, barring any special circumstance.