beta
Text
1. On the basis of a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 631, 2014, No. 631, the Defendant issued against Nonparty C by Nonparty C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff and Nonparty C entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff to lend five million won to Nonparty C by the due date on August 21, 2020, and entered into a transfer contract with the Plaintiff to transfer the Plaintiff’s ownership of each movable property listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “each movable property of this case”) by means of an occupancy revision for the purpose of securing the performance of the said loan obligation. After entering into a transfer contract with the original district court’s development registry office on August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff and Nonparty C obtained the fixed date at the time of the transfer contract entered into.
B. Meanwhile, based on the No. 631, No. 631, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution against each of the instant corporeal movables with the instant court’s 2015No. 156, and completed the attachment execution on September 2, 2015.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination
(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, 194). According to the above facts, C, the owner of each of the instant corporeal movables, concluded a security agreement with C, which is the owner of each of the instant corporeal movables, and received a delivery by means of possession and alteration of possession. Thus, even if the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, did not make profits from each of the instant corporeal movables, each of the instant corporeal movables in the external relationship with the Defendant, is deemed as the Plaintiff’s ownership. Thus, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against C, a third party, who is not the execution obligor, based on the above notarial deed against C, is unlawful, and thus,
(b).