1. On August 2, 2016, the movable property stated in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and C was concluded on August 2, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and C drafted a notarial deed as a notary public D’s No. 695 on August 2, 2016. According to this, the Plaintiff specified KRW 70,00,000 as of August 2, 2016 to C by the due date for reimbursement of KRW 70,000 as of June 20, 2021. The purpose of securing the performance of the said obligation is to: (a) enter into a loan agreement for lending money with collateral security (hereinafter “instant contract for transfer”), with the purport of securing the performance of the said obligation, and (b) transfer the said obligation to the Plaintiff by means of possession and revision of the movable property recorded in the separate sheet, thereby recognizing compulsory execution.

B. Meanwhile, on September 7, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C seeking payment of KRW 24,301,300 in the amount of goods unpaid from December 2014 to July 2015, the Incheon District Court rendered a judgment ordering C to pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 24,301,300 and delay damages therefor, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 3, 2017.

Based on the executory exemplification of the above judgment, the Defendant applied for the execution of the seizure of corporeal movables under this Court 2017No. 2188, and attached each object listed in the attached list through the enforcement officer belonging to this Court on August 22, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant compulsory execution”). C.

C At the time of entering into the instant transfer security agreement, there was no particular property other than the subject matter of each of the instant transfer security agreements.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the goods to C by November 2014, but did not receive approximately KRW 200,000,000. The Plaintiff concluded the instant security transfer agreement with C to secure this. As such, the Plaintiff is bona fide in relation to the third party.