The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal (1) No. 1 of the grounds of appeal, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, Defendant Switzerland, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Switzerland”), did not have a duty to postpone a compulsory execution application by accepting the Plaintiff’s request for postponement of compulsory execution, and that, in collusion with the execution officer, Defendant Switzerland could not be deemed to have committed compulsory execution under the circumstances where compulsory execution was inappropriate, it cannot be said that Defendant Switzerland was in the position of keeping the instant work in custody.

Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the custody relationship of corporeal movables other than the subject matter of execution

(2) On the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the instant work could be restored to the same level as its original form and the decrease in exchange value cannot be recognized, and that the Plaintiff’s damage caused by damage to the instant work is limited to the cost of restoration.

Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

In doing so, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or not exercising the right of explanation.

2. As to the appeal of Defendant Han-in Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han-invi case”), there was no indication in the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal filed by Defendant Han-invi case, and the appellate brief was not filed within the statutory period.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff and the appeal by the defendant Han Sovi case is assessed against the plaintiff.