유체동산인도
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. B, on June 20, 2018, under the suspicion of violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, the investigative agency was subject to seizure of 30 games for new posters and 30 games for disuseers (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant games”).
B. Since May 26, 2018 to June 20, 2018, B was prosecuted on the criminal facts stating that “In the course of operating a game room, from May 26, 2018 to June 20, 2018, B, with 60 units of the game machine of this case and the automatic game driving device, installed the game machine of this case and 10 units of the game, made them available to an unspecified number of people, calculated 10,00 won per 10,000 points, deducted 10% per 10,000 won as a commission, and exchanged 9,000 won as a result of exchange.” On November 12, 2018, B was sentenced to a summary order having been issued from the Gwangju District Court to order confiscation of the game machine of this case and the game machine of this case. The above summary order became final and conclusive around that time.
(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings (based on Recognition)
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff, who is engaged in the Plaintiff’s game machine distribution business, was the owner of the instant game machine from E on May 23, 2018. On May 25, 2018, B leased the instant game machine from the Plaintiff and operated the instant game machine, and all of the instant game machine was confiscated.
However, in principle, the judgment that sentenced confiscation of the article owned by a third party, other than the defendant, is limited to preventing the possession of the article in relation to the defendant who was convicted of the facts causing confiscation, and it does not affect the ownership of the third party who was not tried in the case. Thus, the defendant shall deliver the article to the plaintiff who is the owner of the game machine of this case.