동산인도청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s founder of the ASEAN (WASC’s Schchos and Clleleleles, U.S. Western School’s Education Committee), which is a certified school (hereinafter “instant foreigners’ school”). On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff entrusted the operation of the said foreigners’ school to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), which was the representative of Defendant C, because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to directly operate the said foreigners’ school due to the lack of school building, etc., and transferred the instant movable property, which is a kind of seal that the said foreigners’ school was a WASC’s certified school, to the said Defendant.
However, Defendant C, in collusion with Defendant B and D, committed an illegal act such as recruiting students by pretending to be the foreigners’ school of this case. On June 18, 2013, the Seoul District Office of Education issued a corrective order to reinstate the right to operate the above foreigners’ school on the ground that the aforementioned illegal act, the Plaintiff, and F entered into a contract under which the pertinent foreigners’ right to operate the school was illegally transferred without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the implementation of the corrective order, and requested the return of the instant movable property and the pertinent foreigners’ school register, etc. on several occasions, but the Defendants refused such request. Ultimately, the Plaintiff finally terminated the operation consignment agreement on January 30 and February 24, 2015.
Thus, as long as the operation entrustment agreement for the foreigners' school of this case is terminated, the defendants are no longer entitled to possess the movables of this case, so there is a duty to deliver the said movables to the plaintiff as a legitimate right holder.
2. We examine the judgment, and in the case of the extradition suit, such as the instant case, it should be proved that the Plaintiff has the title to seek the delivery of a specific movable, and that the Defendants occupied the specific movable.
However, the Plaintiff.