beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.27 2015가단113710

동산인도

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (facility lease agreement) with a non-nbb (hereinafter “non-nb”) stating that the Plaintiff purchased movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant movable property”) from A (B) and agreed to lease the movable property as KRW 36 months, monthly lease fee of KRW 2,777,300 in the non-nb.

On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff terminated the lease agreement on the grounds of delinquency in rent, and on June 23, 2015, the unpaid rent is KRW 57,513,803.

B. B. LAW sold the instant movable property to Defendant Pullon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Pullon”), and on April 1, 2015, Defendant Pullon sold the instant movable property to Defendant Ruln F&C (hereinafter “Defendant mobilization F&C”).

The defendant mobilization AWnb currently occupies the movable property of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The main claim is that Defendant AWnB purchased and possessed the instant movable property owned by the Plaintiff from Defendant Pungn, who is not authorized to dispose of, and thus, shall deliver it to the Plaintiff as the owner.

B. Preliminary claim: (a) sold the instant movable property owned by the Plaintiff to Defendant AWnBnB; and (b) the Defendant AWnB acquired the instant movable property in good faith.

As a result, Defendant Pungnuri made the Plaintiff unable to recover ownership of the instant movable, thereby incurring monetary damages equivalent to the remaining value of the instant movable. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom.

3. Judgment on the main claim

A. The fact that non-bnb sold the instant movable property owned by the Plaintiff to Defendant Pungb, and that Defendant Pungb sold the instant movable property again to Defendant AWnbnb, as seen earlier.

B. However, in this case, Defendant Pung-gu.