1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell the instant machinery in the amount of KRW 580,000,000,000,000 with Korea-China Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). At the time, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Nonparty Company on the reservation of ownership to the effect that the ownership of the instant machinery was to be paid to the Plaintiff until the Nonparty Company pays the price for the instant machinery in full

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”) B.

On the other hand, the non-party company filed an application for corporate rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court 2014 Ma114 and received a decision to commence rehabilitation on June 13, 2014 from the above court.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that "the non-party company did not pay KRW 360 million out of the price of the machinery of this case, and the ownership of the machinery of this case is the plaintiff pursuant to the contract for the purchase and sale of the ownership of this case, and therefore the plaintiff seeks delivery of the machinery of this case as the exercise of the right of repurchase."

However, in the case of sale by possession of movable property, since the seller's reserved ownership has the substance of the security right, it is reasonable to treat the buyer as a rehabilitation security right in the rehabilitation procedure for the buyer like the transfer of the object of the security right. The seller cannot exercise the right of re-transfer for movable property

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da61190, Apr. 10, 2014). Therefore, the Plaintiff may exercise his/her right only through a final inspection judgment or a lawsuit of objection thereto, etc. in the rehabilitation proceedings against the non-party company, reporting the right as a rehabilitation secured creditor in the rehabilitation proceedings against the non-party company.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.