A. The movable property listed in the Plaintiff’s attached list (hereinafter “instant visibility”) is owned by the Plaintiff.

In 205 or 2006, the Defendant borrowed money to take charge of the business entrusted by the Plaintiff. As the Defendant requires the visibility, 400,000 won is repaid to the pawnpo and the visibility of this case is not returned.

B. It is true that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant to the pawned Center. The Plaintiff was unable to repay the interest due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the money, and the Plaintiff recovered and kept the visibility after requesting the Defendant to recover the money.

Since then, the Plaintiff demanded several occasions of money and the Defendant granted money to the Plaintiff, so the visibility of this case is actually completed.

2. Determination

A. Article 213 of the Civil Act provides, “The owner may demand the person who possesses an article in his/her possession to return it: Provided, That the possessor may refuse to return it if he/she has the right to possess it.”

As a result, the plaintiff must prove the fact that the article was owned by himself and that the defendant possessed it.

At this time, it is not necessary to assert and prove that the plaintiff is currently owned by the plaintiff, and it is sufficient to assert and prove only that the plaintiff was owned by the plaintiff before the deposit.

In addition, the defendant should assert and prove that he/she has the right to possess the goods.

B. The plaintiff's ownership and the defendant's possession of the present visibility are acknowledged without dispute between the parties, until the visibility of this case was left to the pawne at least, until the time of recovery.

Therefore, the defendant, barring special circumstances, shall see the plaintiff in this case.