1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for debt repayment with collateral transfer (hereinafter “instant contract for collateral transfer”) with respect to a movable property listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant movable property”) with a view to securing the principal and interest on a loan of KRW 3 million (payment period: October 10, 2015; interest and delay damages (10% per annum) between C and C, and entered into a notarial deed as stipulated in Article 610 of the certificate of the D General Law Office (hereinafter “instant contract for collateral transfer”).

B. On October 27, 2016, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Daegu District Court 2013Kadan56928, the Defendant seized the instant movable property in Daegu Suwon-gu E and 101 Dong 406, 201.

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

2. Summary of compulsory execution against the movable property of this case

A. If a security contract for a movable property is concluded with respect to the relevant legal doctrine and the mortgagee has received the delivery by means of possession revision, even before the liquidation procedure is completed, the mortgagee is not entitled to use and benefit from the collateral, but is entitled to use and benefit from the collateral in relation to a third party.

B. As examined earlier in the judgment on the instant case, it is recognized that the instant security agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and C with respect to the instant movable property, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution against the instant movable property by the Defendant is not allowed as against corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of false indication of conspiracy

A. The Defendant’s assertion is invalid since the transfer of security contract of this case was made by means of false conspiracy with the Plaintiff and C in order to evade compulsory execution.

B. The Plaintiff, as the wife of C, is a partner of F, C.