1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. Since November 2012, C has been operating a manufacturer who is mutually favorable to “F” in Macheon-si I (hereinafter “I place of business”).

On May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff, while lending KRW 200 million to C, drafted a notarial deed of money loan agreement with collateral security (No. 210, 2013, No. 2010, No. 2013, hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that each movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 1 owned by C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant machines,” and, when referring to individual machines, hereinafter referred to as “instant machines”) is to be provided as collateral by means of transfer transfer in order to secure the above loan claims between C and C.

On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff seized each of the instant machines at the I place of business of C with the title of execution.

(The District Court 2013No. 4256). (b)

On the other hand, on December 13, 2013, C established the F Co., Ltd. F, a corporation, the main office of which is Macheon-si D (hereinafter “D business”), and contracted the construction of a factory at D business place to G.

G Around September 2014, G drafted a letter of performance that “C shall wholly delegate G with the authority to dispose of the site and factory buildings of D business site and factory site, and G shall be paid with the proceeds of the disposal of the said real estate,” following the completion of the construction of the said factory, which was not paid the construction cost by C, and around September 23, 2014.”

After that, G sold D sites and factory buildings to the defendant around September 26, 2014, and the defendant has been engaged in manufacturing business of glass strings in D places of business.

C. Around June 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of corporeal movables with respect to each of the instant machinery, but became impossible on the grounds that “the location of the subject matter of execution is unknown” in June 10, 2015 and “the possession of the subject matter of execution is different” in June 30, 2015.

The plaintiff is "the defendant."