(a) A specific method of an object for which a contract to establish a security for transfer of a movable which changes a group of movables is to be effective;

B. Interpretation of intent in the case of a contract on the transfer of security, which states snicken in a particular quantity in the list of the transferred goods, as approximately KRW 00,000.

C. Whether a contract for transfer of security for the entire fish, such as snnecting in a specific quantity of thousands, is valid (affirmative)

(d) Scope of the effect of contract to establish a security for collection of goods;

A. Generally, it is possible to conclude a contract for establishing a security for the so-called aggregate object, which intends to regard the movable property, the change in a group of objects as a single object, as the object of security for claims. In such cases, if the movable property is specified by the type, place, quantity designation, etc., so that it can be distinguished from other objects of the person who created the security, it may be deemed that the movable property is a single property right and thus its effective security right

B. In the contract for transfer security, if the location, warehouse name and the object of the transfer are stated as approximately 1,00,000 snives from among the snives within the nives of two thousands, and it is not acknowledged that the scope of the security is restricted by designating the snives of the above nives within the above nives of two thousands, the amount stated in the above contract for transfer security is merely a rough display of the number of snives of the snives of the above nives in the above nives of the above nives at the time of the above contract, and the parties are deemed to have been aimed at all

C. Even if the growth continues, the transfer contract on the whole of fish, such as snicking in a certain quantity of fish, is deemed to have been effective since the collateral was specified.

D. If a contract to establish a security interest in a collection is made, even if individual goods constituting the collection are changed or modified, the effect of the security interest is always limited to the collection at all times. Therefore, even if a mortgagee acquires possession of the collection at the time of the contract to establish a security interest by means of possession revision, it is not necessary to conclude a separate contract to establish a security interest or indicate the change of possession.

(b)Article 372 of the Civil Code; Article 105 of the Civil Code;

Korea Exchange Bank (Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 4 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 87Na604 delivered on June 23, 198

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) took account of the facts without dispute between the Plaintiff; (b) held 00 times of sale of the above 10-year snives of 00 snives of 100 snives of 60 snives of 00 snives of 100 snives of 00 snives of 00 snives of 100 snives of 50 snives of 60 snives of snives of 00 snives of 00 snives of 00 snives of 6 snives of snives of 00 snives of 00 snives of 6 snives of snives of snives of 50 snives of snives of 1986 s of s

In general, it is possible to conclude a contract for the establishment of security for the so-called aggregate object which intends to take the change of movable property as the object of security for claims. In such a case, if the movable property is specified by the method of designation of its kind, place, quantity, etc. so that it can be distinguished from other objects of security, it can be deemed that all of such movable property has been a property right and the effective security right has been established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu941, Oct. 25, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1043, Dec. 27, 198). According to the court below's decision that the plaintiff and the above non-party agreed to the effect that the above movable property is within 000,000,000 for the purpose of security for collateral security for 10,000,0000 square meters of the above aggregate object, and that the above contract is valid, but it is difficult to 10,000,000 square meters of the above total quantity of movable property within 2.

Then, even if it continues to grow, it can be the object of the transfer of aggregate goods because there is no reason to see it differently from raw materials, goods, and inventory goods. Thus, the contract between the parties to the transfer of security between the above parties on the whole of the above mass snives, etc. is specified as collateral, and thus the contract is valid. If the contract for the transfer of security right is made on such aggregate, even if the individual goods constituting the aggregate are changed or modified, the contract for the transfer of security right is effective on the aggregate goods at all times without losing identity as one goods. Therefore, if the person who created the transfer of security right acquires possession of the aggregate goods by means of the change of possession of the aggregate goods at the time of the contract for the transfer of security right, it is not necessary to conclude a separate contract for the transfer security right or indicate the change of possession.

Ultimately, the court below erred in finding that the court below stated only 1,00,000 snare as the object of the security for transfer, but the conclusion that the security contract of this case was valid and that the defendants' provisional attachment or compulsory execution against the proceeds from the realization of the security for transfer was improper is justifiable, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles, violation of rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or omission of reasoning, which is based on the premise that only snick 1,00,000 snare as the object of the security for transfer of this case was the object of the security for transfer, and there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles, violation of rules

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won