소유권확인
1. The defendant shall pay 9 million won to the plaintiff.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3. Paragraph 1 shall be provisionally executed.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 2014, the Plaintiff received a proposal from the Defendant for a trade business with each other in the world, and entered into a lease agreement on August 1, 2014 with respect to the new building 1001 in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant office”) to be used as the Defendant’s office.
The Defendant brought the movable property listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant movable property”) into the instant office.
B. On September 2014, the Plaintiff terminated a lease agreement on the instant office. Since the Defendant did not collect the instant movable, the Plaintiff stored the instant movable property located in the instant office through a director company to deliver the said office to the lessor.
C. On December 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with a deposit of 6 million won, monthly rent of 500,000 won (the 29th day of each month when payment is made) as to one vinyl warehouse located in E and Blust City F on December 28, 2014, and had the instant movable property kept in the warehouse from around that time.
From January 2015 to June 2016, the Plaintiff paid the rent of KRW 500,000,000 per month to E.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A 3-1, Evidence A 4-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In order to establish judgment management, it is required that, first of all, the office work is another person's business and there is an intention to vest the actual benefit of management in another person, i.e., the actual benefit of management, and further, it is not clear that the office work is disadvantageous to the principal or against his will
Here, “Proceedings to handle affairs for another person” can be jointly and severally against the will of the manager for his/her own interest, and there is no need to externally indicate it, and there is no need to determine it at the time of managing the affairs
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da30882, Aug. 22, 2013). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is entitled to the said recognition.