1. According to the original copy of the contract deposit agreement (No. 2009dada30898) with respect to B, the Defendant is the Busan District Court.

If a security contract for movable property has been concluded and the mortgagee has been transferred by the method of possession alteration, even before the liquidation procedure is completed, he/she may claim that the third party is the owner of the relevant property and exercise his/her right against the third party.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined as follows: (a) on August 26, 1994; (b) on August 29, 2017, the lower court determined as follows: (c) on April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 12 million to B; and (d) on April 24, 2013, transferred the movable as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant movable property”); (b) on April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff immediately disposed of the movable property by means of transfer; and (d) on August 29, 2017, the lower court notified B that the movable property would be appropriated for repayment of the obligation; and (d) on August 29, 2017, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the instant movable property was subject to compulsory execution (e.g., compulsory execution) under the Agreement.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, a mortgagee, was handed over the instant movable by means of possession revision, and thus, he/she can assert that he/she is the owner of the said movable, and exercise his/her right against the third party.

Therefore, according to the original copy of the contract deposit mediation statement of the Busan District Court 2009Gaso30898, the defendant shall not be subject to compulsory execution against the movable property listed in the separate sheet of August 29, 2017.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted.