The court below found that the goods of this case were manufactured as factory facilities of an organic fertilizer plant on the ground of Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do ( Address 1 omitted), which was established by Nonparty 1, Japan, as a Japanese agent, and concluded a lease contract of the factory site in the name of the above Nonparty by employing Nonparty 2 who is a patent for the production of organic fertilizer, and the goods of this case, which are the factory facilities, also paid KRW 122,00,000 to Nonparty 3 through the above non-party 4, his domestic agent, and then supplied the goods, and then again sold them to the plaintiff. Since the goods of this case are not owned by the non-party 2 but owned by the plaintiff, the compulsory execution of this case was conducted with respect to the goods owned by the third party. In light of the records and records presented by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence.

In addition, since ownership relationship in the public register cannot be publicly announced with respect to movable property, there is no room for the establishment of title trust, but if the appearance of the movable is trusted and the movable is purchased from the possessor and possessed from the possessor, the bona fide acquisition of movable property is a problem. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged to the same purport is just, and the judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to title trust, such as theory of lawsuit, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)