Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) corporation B, including the claim for a counterclaim added in the appellate court.

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also finite.

1. Basic facts D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) leased a building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, etc. owned by Defendant C and operated a wedding hall (hereinafter “instant wedding hall”) with the trade name of “F”.

On November 17, 2010, Defendant C purchased the object of auction in the procedure for the compulsory auction of corporeal movables (hereinafter “the procedure for the compulsory auction of this case”) carried out by Seoul Central District Court 2010No7606 with respect to the article owned D in the instant wedding hall, and leased the building of the instant wedding hall and its internal articles to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry of Gap, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, 21 (written evidence with provisional number includes numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim for the return of the security transferred among the claim on the main claim (the main claim against the main claim).

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the transfer security interest was created is the primary cause of the first claim, and the movable property indicated in attached Forms 1 and 2, which is the object within the instant wedding hall (hereinafter “instant movable property”).

) The Plaintiff is owned D, and the Plaintiff acquired the right to transfer security for the instant movable property as a collateral for the claim to return the loan to D, and Defendant C did not purchase the instant movable property in the process of compulsory sale by official auction, and the Defendants leased the instant movable property to the Defendant Company and possessed the instant movable property, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant movable property to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff did not have the Plaintiff’s claim to return the loan to D, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim to transfer security agreement becomes null and void by means of a false agreement. Even if the said security agreement is valid, even if the said security agreement is valid, the instant movable is not the object of the Plaintiff’s claim, since Defendant C purchased all the goods within the instant wedding hall during the process of the instant compulsory sale by auction and replaced them with other equipment