beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution 2018 Chicago5183, Sept. 5, 2018
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 27, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement on security with the purport that each of the corporeal movables listed in the list of corporeal movables for the attached security (hereinafter “instant secured movables”) is to be set up by an occupancy or revision method with respect to each of the corporeal movables listed in the list of corporeal movables for the attached security (not an interest agreement on March 27, 2010) as a security for a loan amounting to KRW 30,000,000,000, with E, a notary public entered into a notarized deed No. 98 of F Law Firm Certificate 2018.
B. On August 10, 2018, the Defendant completed the attachment execution of each of the corporeal movables listed in the attached attachment list (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Western District Court No. 2018Du1502, Seoul Western District Court on August 10, 2018, based on the executory payment order for loans in the repayment order of the loans held by the court of Orasi District Court 2016Da4484 (hereinafter “instant seizure execution place”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant corporeal movables were transferred by means of transfer from E as security for the loan claim amounting to KRW 30,000,000 lent to E on March 27, 2018, and fall under the Plaintiff’s possession, and thus, the Defendant’s enforcement of the instant corporeal movables on the basis of the title of execution against D should not be permitted.
B. 1) Each of the above corporeal movables claim Nos. 3, 11, and 12 in the separate seizure list does not constitute the subject matter of the instant security agreement, and the Plaintiff is not in the position of a mortgagee for each of the above corporeal movables. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable under the premise that each of the above corporeal movables is a mortgagee for each of the above corporeal movables.