1.In accordance with attached Table 1, it shall be charged to the plaintiff with the real estate listed in attached Table 1.

Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative shall be Daejeon District Court.

1. The facts of the cause of the claim stated in the Attachment 3 of the facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by each entry of evidence A1 to A7, and there is no counter-proof.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the registration of the establishment of a mortgage by the defendants established by an agricultural company A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "A"), which is merely a buyer, is null and void, since the attached movable property indicated in attached Form 2 is still owned by the plaintiff according to a special agreement on the ownership reservation register attached to

In this regard, the defendant non-member agricultural cooperatives acknowledged the existence of the special agreement on the reservation of ownership, but argued that there is no evidence that the unpaid purchase price remains.

3. Determination

A. In concluding a sales contract of movable property, where the seller delivers the object to the buyer before the seller receives the price in full, but until the price is paid in full, the so-called special agreement for the reservation of ownership that the ownership is reserved to the seller and the ownership is transferred to the buyer at the time when the price is paid in full, the agreement between the parties to transfer the ownership of the object on the real right is a condition that the sale contract is concluded and the price is paid in full at the time when the object is delivered. Thus, even if the object is handed over to the buyer, the seller may claim the ownership of the reserved object as well as the

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da30534 delivered on September 7, 1999). Meanwhile, even if a movable is the object of a mortgage under the provisions of the Factory Mortgage Act and is the object of a mortgage, if it is owned by a third party who is not a mortgager, the said mortgage cannot be effective.

(See Supreme Court Order 98Do64 delivered on October 12, 1998). B.

According to the above facts, we examine the above facts, the attached Form 2 movable property.