beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.04.18 2018나111418

동산인도

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant shall be recorded in the attached list, located in the building indicated in the attached list.

Reasons

Basic Facts

F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) leased the instant building to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) as the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an industrial gas supply contract with E on August 20, 2014, and agreed to lease movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) used for the said gas supply without compensation.

At that time, the Plaintiff established the instant movable property in the instant building, and E was supplied with gas from the Plaintiff using the instant movable property.

E was in default on the end of December 2015, and F leased the instant building to the Defendant around March 7, 2017.

On June 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against F for the delivery, etc. of the instant movable as the Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court 2017Gadan2702, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 17, 2017 on the ground that “F does not directly occupy the instant building, and is affiliated with the instant building, and the instant movable is currently affiliated with the instant building, and as the Defendant directly occupies the instant building, it is reasonable to deem that the instant movable is in possession of the Defendant.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on November 3, 2017.

The value of the movable property of this case is KRW 9,570,000.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff, based on an agreement with E on August 20, 2014, attached the instant movable property to the instant building, based on the absence of dispute, written evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7, and 8 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant movable property, as it was based on an agreement with E on August 20, 2014.

We examine who is the possessor of the movable property of this case.

A civil case is bound by the facts recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, etc.