1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the goods listed in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to provide the Defendant with the instant machinery as a collateral for transfer (hereinafter “instant agreement”) by setting the purchase price for the goods listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant machinery”) as KRW 500 million on February 8, 2014, with the payment period of KRW 8,000,000 to the Defendant and ELD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ELD”).

B. Article 8 of the instant arrangement provides that “When a creditor demands the exercise of a right to transfer security, the pledger shall transfer the collateral to the creditor or the person designated by the creditor without delay.”

C. ELD installed the instant machinery in the Defendant’s factory located in the 14,948 square meters of land in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si.

The defendant failed to repay the above loan to the plaintiff by February 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. According to the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant machinery was owned by the Defendant after the completion of construction in the factory operated by the Defendant, and the Defendant failed to repay the loan. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant machinery, the object of security for transfer, to the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant agreement.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since he is under way a voluntary auction based on the mortgage established on the machinery of this case.

However, if the movable which is the object of the mortgage has already been provided for the transfer for security, the movable may not have the effect of the mortgage because it belongs to the ownership of the mortgagee in relation to the mortgagee who is the third party.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 98Da64, Oct. 12, 1998). As seen earlier, the instant machinery was offered as security for transfer to the Plaintiff on August 9, 2013, and was recorded.