Postal relationship between a person who purchased movable property by means of possession or amendment and a person who acquired a security right for such movable property and a person who received the actual delivery;

If the seller of a movable purchased the movable from the seller and takes over it by means of an alteration of possession, the buyer finally acquired the ownership of the movable, and thereafter, even if the seller occupied the movable with the buyer’s consent and offered it to another person without permission, it is a disposition by the unentitled person. Thus, as long as the other person fails to meet the requirements for bona fide acquisition, the right to transfer is not acquired even if it takes over the movable first.

Articles 188 and 189 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1564 Decided January 28, 1975 (Gong1975, 8310) Supreme Court Decision 88Meu26802 Decided October 24, 1989 (Gong1989, 1755)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Lee Jae-su (Attorney Lee Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. (a) It is confirmed that the movables listed in the separate sheet are owned by an independent party intervenor;

B. The defendant shall deliver to the intervenor of the independent party the movable property indicated in the attached list.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising from the principal lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the part resulting from the participation shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant

4. The above paragraph 1(b) may be provisionally executed.

The principal suit: The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the movables listed in the attached list.

Independent party participation: The same shall apply to paragraph (1).

The principal lawsuit and the application for intervention by an independent party shall be considered together.

1. If Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 5, Byung evidence 1, Byung evidence 1, and Byung evidence 2 combines the whole purport of the pleading with the testimony of the non-party witness, the defendant had the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the movable property of this case") at Changwon-si, Changwon-si, with the trade name "○○○" and operated a singing room on June 1996, the right to lease of this case and the movable property of this case sold to the intervenor of the non-party (hereinafter "the intervenor"), who was assigned the movable property of this case to 85,00,000 won by possession of the movable property of this case but still carried out a singing room business without any difference with the previous one. However, on September 24, 1996, the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff about 50,000 won, and the period for payment of possession of the movable property of this case to the plaintiff on September 24, 1996, and without the plaintiff's consent to the transfer of this case.

2. On the ground that the Plaintiff’s repayment period for the loan has expired, the Intervenor sought the delivery of the instant movable property to the Defendant for the enforcement of the right to collateral assignment on the ground that the instant movable property was owned by the Intervenor, the Intervenor is seeking confirmation of ownership against the original and the Defendant on the premise that the instant movable is owned by the Intervenor, and the delivery of the instant movable property against

Therefore, as seen in the facts found in the facts of Paragraph 1, as long as the intervenor purchased the movable property of this case from the defendant and received it by the method of the alteration of possession, the ownership of the said movable property shall be finally acquired. Since the defendant occupied the movable property of this case with the consent of the intervenor and transferred it to the plaintiff without permission without permission is a disposition of an unentitled person, the plaintiff may not acquire the security right unless the plaintiff satisfies the requirements of bona fide acquisition. However, as for the plaintiff, the acquisition by possession through the alteration of possession does not recognize the bona fide acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da1872 delivered on January 17, 1978). Furthermore, as seen in the evidence No. 5 of Paragraph 5 of this Article, even if the plaintiff received a provisional disposition against the defendant for the prohibition of transfer of possession of the movable property of this case as of October 10, 1996, it cannot be said that there was a bona fide acquisition, which is the requirements for the bona fide acquisition of the security right to the movable property of this case.

In addition, as the plaintiff's assertion, the above case takes the shape of the transfer of movable property from the defendant and all of the transfer of movable property from the plaintiff and the intervenor take the form of transfer of movable property by the method of possession revision, and even if not, the above two persons have first taken over the reality or the person subject to the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of movable property first acquired ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu26802, Oct. 24, 1989) pursuant to the legal principles that the plaintiff first acquired ownership of movable property prior to the intervenor, but the above legal principles of the above Supreme Court precedents should be understood as limited to the case where the transferor establishes the transfer of movable property more effectively in the case of the transfer of movable property with the right to dispose of movable property, at least in the case of the transfer of movable property with the right to dispose of movable property as in the case of this case, it shall be deemed that the first assignee does not apply if the transferor cannot perform the act of disposal thereafter. Thus, the above conclusion cannot be different in accordance with the legal

3. If so, since the movable property of this case is owned by the intervenor, the plaintiff and the defendant disputing the ownership is sought to confirm the ownership of the movable property, and the plaintiff's claim seeking to deliver the movable property based on ownership is justified. On the contrary, the plaintiff's claim seeking to deliver the movable property to the defendant on the premise that the movable property is owned by the plaintiff is owned by the plaintiff is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

For the transfer of judge Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)