beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s enforcement order against Nonparty C and D is the Seoul Central District Court No. 2019Da198466.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 9, 2019, based on the executory payment order of Nonparty C and D in the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2019Da198466, the Defendant seized each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant movables”) in the Busan Dong-gu E apartment and F (hereinafter “C”) at the debtor’s domicile, which is the debtor D’s domicile, to G in this court.
B. Around September 25, 2017, a document of borrowing that the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,00,000 to Nonparty C and D was drafted.
On March 19, 2018, the Plaintiff and C agreed to receive KRW 5,000,000 from September 25, 2017 to March 31, 2018, “a notarial deed for money loan contract for security transfer (hereinafter “notarial deed for money loan for security transfer”) to the effect that “the place of custody is transferred to the Defendant by means of possession revision and possession of ownership of the goods at the debtor’s domicile,” which read “a notarial deed for money loan for security transfer” in Article 438, 2018.
(C) On the other hand, the list of corporeal movables for which the Plaintiff acquired the right of transfer for security by means of possession amendment based on the notarial deed of transfer for security in this case and the list of each of the instant movables attached by the Defendant appears to have been erroneous in the process of preparing a list of security different from part of the investigation. It is consistent with most of the other parts.
2. Determination
A. Where a security contract is concluded on a movable property to determine the cause of a claim, and a mortgagee has received delivery by the method of possession revision, even before the liquidation procedure is completed, the mortgagee is not entitled to use and benefit from the collateral, but is entitled to exercise his/her right by asserting that he/she is the owner of the collateral in relation to a third
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da44739, Aug. 26, 1994). The facts acknowledged above are acknowledged in the legal doctrine as seen earlier.