1. The Defendant’s provisional disposition of the prohibition of possession transfer by the Supreme Court Decision 2015Kadan1742 on May 8, 2015 against Hong citizens Co., Ltd.

1. On August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a transfer security agreement on the instant machinery with the Red Citizens with the authority to dispose of the instant machinery (hereinafter “instant machinery”) in order to secure monetary claims against Red Citizens Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scars”), and received the instant machinery from Red Citizens by means of possession or amendment. However, the Defendant entered into a provisional execution on May 8, 2015 with respect to the instant machinery (hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”) on May 19, 2015, pursuant to the decision of prohibition of possession transfer and provisional disposition of possession transfer by the Gwangju District Court Decision 2015Kadan1742, May 2015.

If the Plaintiff entered into a security agreement on the instant machinery and received it by the method of possession revision, even before completing the liquidation procedure, it is not possible to claim that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant machinery, but is not entitled to use and benefit from the collateral, in relation to a third party, even before completing the liquidation procedure.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da44739, Aug. 26, 1994). Accordingly, the Plaintiff, a mortgagee of the instant machinery, may seek the exclusion of compulsory execution against the Defendant by asserting ownership.

2. On the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that, on December 19, 2013, the instant machinery was acquired in good faith and without negligence by taking over the instant machinery in good faith and by occupying it in good faith and without fault.

However, there is no proof that the Defendant acquired possession of the instant machinery, and the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit without examining other requirements for bona fide acquisition of movable property.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so ordered as per Disposition.