동산인도청구
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant D Co., Ltd. shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff falling under the above part of the revocation.
1. The reasons for this part of this Court’s reasoning are as follows, and the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 5 to No. 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance) is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Accordingly, this part is cited in accordance
Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) in Part 6 of the third party judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter “Defendant B”) shall be read as “Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) and the part of “Defendant B” in each corresponding part shall be read as “B.”
B. Part 5 of the 6th judgment of the first instance court "the custody of the instant collateral" shall be written by "the custody of the collateral."
(c) The part of conduct Nos. 10 through 11 of the first instance court ruling is written with the following facts: “No dispute is raised: evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 11; and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 14, and 15; and the purport of the whole pleadings,” respectively.
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. 1) As to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to nonperformance, Defendant C’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the provision on delegation, etc. of the Civil Act to the Plaintiff, and each of the contracts acknowledged in relation to the instant project (hereinafter “instant contracts”).
Based on the terms and conditions of the contract for the use of the oil storage warehouse of this case, the person liable for the delivery of specific goods or the person liable for the storage of the oil storage of this case, with the duty of due care of a good manager, is obligated to keep the instant security in the oil storage warehouse of this case.
However, Defendant C did not decry the password of the instant remote release management system, did not separately prepare procedures for certification when changing the password, and on Saturdays or Sundays at the time of delivery of the second part.