Law Firm Dozin, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Sang-hoon

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 17,37,50 won with 5% interest per annum from April 3, 2012 to June 12, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 1/2 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion of money under paragraph (1) above may be provisionally executed.

The payment shall be made at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the duplicate is served to the day of complete payment.

가. 이륜자동차, 트레일러, 레포츠 기기 등의 제조 및 판매업을 영위하는 회사인 원고는 2010. 3. 20. △△네트웍스 주식회사 ( 이하 ' △△네트웍스 ' 라고 한다 ) 와 사이에, △△네트웍스가 원고로부터 공급받은 물품을 판매할 경우 소정의 수수료를 지급하기로 하는 물품위탁판매계약을 체결하였다 .

나. 원고는 위 계약에 따라, 2010. 10. 20. 부터 2011. 2. 20. 까지 △△네트웍스에 그 무렵 제조된 다음 표 기재의 동산 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 동산 ' 이라 한다 ) 을 공급하였다 .

다. 피고는 △△네트웍스에 대한 공증인가 필동합동법률사무소 2008년 증서 제458호 집행력 있는 약속어음 공정증서 정본을 집행권원으로 하여, 2011. 3. 25. 이 사건 동산을 압류 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 압류 ' 라 한다 ) 를 하였다 .

D. Accordingly, on April 8, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant with the Government District Court 201Gahap3944 decided April 8, 2011, and the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on April 20, 2011, and the above court.

은 2011. 9. 8. 이 사건 동산은 위탁자인 원고의 소유이고 △△네트웍스는 이 사건 동산의 위탁판매자에 불과하다는 이유로 ' 피고가 위 공정증서 정본에 기하여 2011. 3 .

25. A judgment was rendered that "shall not allow compulsory execution against the movable property of this case," and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 5, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, the facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In addition to the fact that an obligee is liable to compensate for damages of a third party caused by the seizure of a third party’s property, not a debtor, as a tort, the obligee should have known, or failed to know, that the subject matter was the third party’s property at the time of the seizure. Such intention or negligence cannot be presumed immediately from the fact that the subject matter was owned by a third party, not a debtor. However, even if the obligee had no intention or negligence at the time of the seizure, even though he knew, or could have easily known, that the subject matter of the seizure was the third party’s ownership, if the obligee continued to maintain the seizure condition even though he knew, or could have easily known, that the subject matter was the third party’s ownership, the obligee cannot be exempted from liability for damages caused by unlawful execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da59767, Apr. 9, 199).

위 법리에 비추어 이 사건을 보건대, 갑 제4호증, 을 제6, 7호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 피고가 2008. 4. 3. 경 △△네트웍스에 2억 원 상당을 투자하였고, 2009. 9. 1. 부터 2009. 11. 25. 까지 사이에 △△네트웍스의 대표이사로 등재되어 있었던 사실이 인정되나, 한편 위 증거들에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 이 사건 압류는 피고가 위 대표이사로 등재되었던 기간 후에 있었던 일이고, 피고는 위 등재 기간 이후로는 △△네트웍스로부터 영업에 관하여 정기적으로 보고를 받거나 업무에 관여하지 않았던 점, 피고는 이 사건 압류를 채권추심업체인 고려신용정보주식회사에 의뢰하였던 점 등을 고려하여 보면, 피고가 이 사건 압류 당시 이 사건 동산이 △△네트웍스가 아닌 원고의 소유임을 알았거나 알지 못한 데 과실이 있다고 보기는 어렵다 .

그러나 피고가 이 사건 압류 후인 2011. 4. 20. 이 사건 동산이 원고의 소유라고 주장하는 내용의 위 소장 부본을 송달받았고, 피고가 △△네트웍스의 전 투자자이자 대표이사의 지위에 있었던 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같은바, 사정이 그러하다면 피고로서는 △△네트웍스를 통해 이 사건 동산의 소유관계를 쉽게 확인할 수 있는 지위에 있었고, 적어도 위 소장 부본을 송달받았을 무렵에는 곧바로 이 사건 동산의 소유관계에 대한 조사를 실시함으로써 이 사건 동산이 원고의 소유물임을 쉽게 알 수 있었다고 할 것인데, 피고가 위와 같은 조사를 하지 않은 과실로 위 사건의 판결이 확정될 때까지 이 사건 동산에 대한 불법집행을 유지한 잘못이 있다고 할 것이므로, 피고는 위 불법집행으로 인하여 원고가 위 2011. 4. 20. 부터 위 판결 확정일인 2011. 10. 5. 까지의 기간 동안 이 사건 동산에 대한 소유권을 행사하지 못함으로써 입은 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다고 할 것이다 .

B. The scope of liability for damages (1) The value of the movable property of this case

If Gap evidence Nos. 24 and 25 added the purport of the whole pleadings, the value of the movable property of this case as of March 29, 201 can be recognized as having the same facts as the following table, barring any special circumstance, it shall be ratified as having the same amount even around April 20, 201.

( 2 ) 감가상각률과 잔존 가치 원고나 △△네트웍스가 이 사건 동산을 실제로 판매하지 못한 이 사건에 있어서, 이 사건 동산의 감가상각액은 향후의 예상수익이라 할 것이고, 향후의 예상수익에 관한 입증에 있어서의 그 증명도는 과거 사실에 대한 입증에 있어서의 증명도보다 이를 경감하여 피해자가 현실적으로 얻을 수 있을 구체적이고 확실한 수익의 증명이 아니라 상당한 개연성이 있는 수익의 증명으로 족한 것이나, 이 경우에도 예상수익의 증명은 객관적으로 입증된 근거사실에 기하여 합리성과 객관성을 잃지 않는 범위에서 이루어져야 한다 ( 대법원 1994. 11. 25. 선고 94다32917 판결 등 참조 ) .

If the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 24 and 25 is added to the whole oral argument, it can be found that the service life (the service life) of each of the instant movable property manufactured and supplied from the end of the year 2010 to the beginning of the year 2011 is six years, the service life of the Tki is nine years, the remaining value after six months of the two-wheeled automobile with the service life of six years based on the new product is 85%, and the remaining value after 6 months of the non-business passenger car and truck with the service life of 12 years is 87.5%. Since the remaining value after the nine-year service life is 6 years and 86.25% (the above service life of the plaintiff is 85% + 85%) between the two-year service life and the non-business passenger cars with the service life of 12 years, the remaining value shall be 10% from the 20th day of the above 10th day after the second 20th day.

(3) Plaintiff’s damages

The Plaintiff’s damages calculated by applying the above criteria are as listed below.

From April 3, 2012, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act until June 12, 2014, which is the date of the ruling of the court of the first instance, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

(4) Determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion of additional damages (special damages)

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant movable property, the leisure bkisk and the leisure bki, due to its unique characteristics, would not be sold for about six months from the first time of October to the first time of April of the next year, due to the characteristics of its demand, there was almost no sales from the first time of October to the first day of April of the next year, and the goods not sold in the first time are sold at a discount of 30%. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, due to the instant seizure, from disposing of the instant movable property for the six months, are equivalent to 30% of the normal selling price of the new movable property.

However, without the seizure of this case, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff could have sold the movable property of this case at normal prices in the absence of the seizure of this case, and even if the plaintiff's assertion is true, such damage is attributable to the unique characteristics of the movable property of this case and thus, it constitutes damages due to special circumstances. Thus, the perpetrator can seek damages only if he knew or could have known such circumstances, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant knew or could have known such circumstances, the above assertion by the plaintiff cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is partially accepted and the corresponding part is revoked and the defendant is ordered to pay the above amount, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Scaria

Judge Lee Hong-soo