동산인도
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. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the third party of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “third party”) is used as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the defense
A. The defendant asserted that he acquired the movable property of this case in good faith.
B. According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1 (NMURA mechanical contract), the defendant was found to have entered into a sales contract to purchase six parts of the CNC automatic lines, including four parts of the movable property of this case, from ASEAN on January 14, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case"), and the fact that the defendant takes over and occupies the movable property of this case from ASEAN is as mentioned above. Thus, the defendant is presumed to have occupied the movable property of this case in good faith by taking over the movable property of this case in a peaceful and public performance, barring any special circumstance.
The plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case was revoked or void since it is clear that the movable property of this case was made by the defendant at the time of entering into the contract of this case, and it was domestically nonexistent and it was not in existence. Thus, the contract of this case is invalid.
However, the bona fide acquisition of movable property is established if there is no fault in the transaction, except that the transferor is an unentitled person. Since the reason that the movable property of this case was not yet produced does not affect the validity of the sales contract of this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely an emphasis on the assertion that the case is an unentitled person.
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
Furthermore, we examine whether the Defendant was negligent in not knowing the fact that the instant lease contract was concluded with respect to the instant movable property and the owner of the case was not the owner.
the purport of each entry and the whole pleading of the evidence as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 10 of this paragraph.