[동산인도][하집1989(1),48]
Auction and bona fide Acquisition of Movables
If a creditor who has received a security from a debtor fails to claim the ownership, etc. of the movable until the date of auction even though he was notified of the seizure and auction of the movable, and the successful bidder was awarded a successful bid without knowing such fact, the successful bidder shall acquire the ownership of the movable in good faith, in which he/she occupied it by taking it in a public auction in good faith without any negligence.
Article 249 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 66Da1545, 1546 Decided November 22, 1966 (Civil First, Article 249(12) of the Civil Code 498 Ka2314 Gab314 14 Doz.210)
Park Lin-style
Man-cil et al.
Seoul District Court Branch of Seoul District Court (87Gahap984)
1. The judgment below is modified as follows.
2. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.
(a) to deliver movables listed in the Attachment No. 2, and to pay 67,330 won per month from October 28, 1986 to the date on which the delivery is completed;
(b) Payment of 2,205,00 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from February 26, 1987 to January 20, 1989, and 25% with an annual interest rate of 2,000 won from the next day to the date of full payment.
3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
4. All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendants respectively.
The Defendants shall jointly and severally deliver to the Plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached Table 1, and shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount of KRW 420,090 per month from October 28, 1986 to the completion date of the above delivery, with an amount of KRW 5,705,00 per annum at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.
The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation shall be dismissed.
Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.
The Defendants, despite the absence of dispute, did not have the duty of care to carry out the above 1 and 0 separate boxes of No. 7, No. 2 (No. 7; hereinafter the same shall apply), No. 5 (Protocol No. 6), No. 7-1, No. 11, No. 2 (No. 7), and No. 3 (No. 8's power of attorney), No. 8 (No. 8's certificate of execution), and No. 9 were assigned to the Defendants at the same time as the above 6's list of movables, and the above 0's list of movables of No. 1 and No. 8's disposal of No. 1, No. 1, No. 3, and the above 6's disposal of No. 1, No. 1, and the above 6's disposal of No.
The plaintiff, based on the above successful bid, sought the return of unjust enrichment by the above 0-mentioned 10-year rental house and the above damages from the above 0-year rental house to the above 0-year rental house. The plaintiff asserted that the above 0-year rental house and the above 0-year rental house were owned by the non-party 1, and that the plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of the above 0-year rental house, and that the above 0-year rental house and the above 0-year rental house were owned by the above 0-year rental house without any dispute over the above 9-year rental house and the above 0-year rental house were owned by the non-party 1, the above 0-year rental house and the above 0-year rental house were owned by the non-party 1, the above 0-year rental house and the above 9-year rental house were owned by the non-party 1, and each of the above 4-year rental houses and the above 0-year rental houses were purchased by the non-party 1.
Therefore, according to the facts found above, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages amounting to KRW 2,205,00,000, which is 67,330 won per month, which is the unjust enrichment of the clinical Party, derived from the transfer of movable property listed in the attached Table 2 to the plaintiff and the use of the said movable property without any legal authority.
Meanwhile, on January 20, 1987, the plaintiff sold 9,00,000 won of the movable property of this case to Nonparty 1, who was after the date of the above successful bid, to Nonparty 1, the plaintiff returned 2 times the amount received as the down payment, and received 3,50,000 won of the down payment on the day when the contract was violated. However, on February 6, 1987, the plaintiff did not perform the above contractual obligation due to the defendants' refusal to deliver the movable property of this case, and paid 3,500,000 won to the above shortest refund on September of the same month after the contract was terminated, and the plaintiff paid 3,50,000 won as penalty to the above shortest refund. However, the plaintiff did not know the above fact that the plaintiff was aware of or was not aware of the fact that the defendants paid 00,000 won of the contract to Nonparty 3, as alleged in the above evidence, despite the witness evidence No. 4 (a sale contract) and the above part of the contract.
Therefore, the defendants jointly and severally deliver to the plaintiff the separate list 2 from October 28, 1986 to the day following the day when the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the above movable property, and shall pay an amount of 67,30 won per month from October 28, 1986 to the day when the above delivery is completed (the plaintiff also sought an amount of 247,070 won per month from the statutory depreciation price for the above movable property, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, this part of the plaintiff's claim is groundless) as to the above recognized damages of 2,205,00 won, and the above amount of damages of 2,205,00 won from the date following the record as requested by the plaintiff as to the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case from February 26, 1987 to the day when the judgment of the court below is rendered, and as to the remaining amount of damages by applying Article 9 of the Civil Procedure Act to the 97,000 won per annum 25,000 per annum,000.
Judges Suspension-type (Presiding Judge) The highest fixed Kim