유체동산인도
1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
2...
1. The Plaintiff asserted that the return dog was lost on or around August 2017 (hereinafter “the return dog”). The Defendant adopted the above return dog on or around April 30, 2019 and sold it to a third party on May 16, 2019. The Defendant confirmed that the return dog in this case was owned by the Plaintiff and was obligated to deliver it to the Plaintiff.
2. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of the part of a claim for confirmation of ownership is recognized where obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the legal status is unstable and dangerous, and filing a lawsuit claiming performance despite the fact that filing a lawsuit for confirmation of ownership is not a final method to resolve a dispute, and thus there is no benefit in confirmation.
(2) The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, on the premise that the Plaintiff occupied the instant return dog, sought confirmation as to whether the instant return dog was owned by the Plaintiff, and at the same time sought delivery of the instant return dog on the premise that the Defendant possessed the instant return dog. The Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, can achieve the purpose of the said confirmation claim upon the claim for performance of performance. As such, there is no legal interest to seek confirmation separately.
Therefore, the part of the claim for ownership confirmation among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.
3. Not only the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to acknowledge the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, but also in order to request the delivery on the ground of an illegal possession, the request for extradition against the person who actually occupies the object should be made, and even if an illegal possessor does not actually possess it to another person, the request for extradition against the person shall be deemed unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da9045, Jul. 9, 199). Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant does not occupy the return dog at present, and thus, the Plaintiff’s request for extradition against the person.