자동차반환 등
1. The defendant shall deliver the vehicle listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3...
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 3:
Attached Form
With respect to automobiles listed in the list (hereinafter “instant automobiles”), on December 30, 2013, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of juitius Co., Ltd., and on March 21, 2014, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff.
B. On the other hand, a sales contract was made between juitius and the Plaintiff on March 14, 2014 with respect to the instant automobile, which is KRW 7,300,000 as the sales price as of March 14, 2014.
C. Around June 11, 2011, the Defendant purchased the foregoing vehicle from C, which was in possession of the instant vehicle, and occupies it.
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant vehicle, unless there are special circumstances.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought compensation of KRW 16,000,000 in the event that the Defendant is unable to return the instant motor vehicle, which appears to have sought the subject claim in preparation for the impossibility of delivery of the said motor vehicle.
A creditor may combine the subject claim with an additional claim on behalf of the claimant. The above subject claim is allowed to seek compensatory damages in preparation for cases where it is impossible to perform the claim before the judgment becomes final and conclusive or where it becomes impossible to execute the claim after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, on the premise that there exist the original claim for compensatory damages. The calculation of the subject amount shall be based on the price of the original benefits at the time of the closure of fact-finding proceedings.
(See Supreme Court Decision 75Da450 delivered on July 22, 1975). However, in the instant case, evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the market price at the time of closing argument of the instant vehicle, and it is otherwise recognized.