1. On January 13, 2016, according to the contract establishing a security interest in movable property concluded by the Defendant on May 22, 2015 with Nonparty B, the list is as shown in the attached Form.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 16, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 110,000,00 to E running “D” in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and concluded a transfer of security agreement between E and E on the same day to transfer the ownership of movables listed in the attached list owned by E (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) to the Plaintiff by means of possession revision.

B. On May 22, 2015, E entered into an overall transfer and takeover contract with B, and transferred all of the D’s assets and liabilities it operated to B.

C. On May 22, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract to establish a security interest in movable property as to movable property in D, including the instant corporeal movables, in accordance with the Act on Security over Movable Property Claims, etc.

Based on the above security interest in movable property, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of movable property with the Changwon District Court 2016No116 on the instant corporeal movables.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) If a contract for the transfer of security for a movable is concluded, and a mortgagee obtains the transfer by possession of the movable, he/she may claim that the mortgagee is the owner of the movable even before the completion of the liquidation procedure, although he/she does not have any right to use or benefit from the movable, but in relation to a third party,

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da44739 delivered on August 26, 1994, etc.). B.

On December 16, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the right of transfer for security by means of possession and alteration of the corporeal movables of this case on December 16, 2014 is as seen earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff may assert that the Defendant, a third party, is the owner of the instant corporeal movables.

C. The Defendant alleged that the security interest in movable property was established for the instant corporeal movables, but the Defendant.