B. Whether other right holders, who are not the obligor, can seek the return of the goods, where the obligor delivered the goods of another person with the repayment of the obligation, regardless of Article 463 of the Civil Act (affirmative)

B. Article 463 of the Civil Code provides that an obligor who delivered an object of another person with the repayment of an obligation cannot demand the return of the object unless the obligor performs the obligation again, and does not purport that the obligor cannot demand the return of the object, but the obligor cannot demand the return of the object.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on its adopted evidence that the plaintiff company ordered the non-party corporation to manufacture electric products and lent the gold of this case necessary therefor to the non-party corporation, and the defendant 2, an employee of the non-party corporation 1, who was the defendant 1, who was an employee of the non-party 1, who had a claim for the payment of goods, lent the gold of this case to the non-party corporation to the non-party corporation, and the above gold of the defendant 2, who was an employee of the non-party 1, who was an employee of the non-party 2, was aware of the plaintiff company's lending to the non-party corporation and caused fatal damage due to the plaintiff's failure to produce the products, and the plaintiff company's request for the return of the non-party corporation by being provided with the above gold of this case as security and being able to receive payment as a substitute for the non-party corporation's claim for the payment of goods.

As determined by the court below, if Defendant 2 suffered losses due to Defendant 2’s failure to produce the product by being provided as a collateral by Nonparty 1, a director of the non-party company, with the knowledge that the gold type of this case was in receipt of the manufacturing and supply of electric products from the Plaintiff company and was in possession of them, and by keeping and concealing them in the other place, he would constitute a tort against the Plaintiff company. Although the non-party 1 was prosecuted for embezzlement of the gold type of this case under the occupational custody on the grounds that it cannot be recognized that Defendant 2 conspired with the non-party 1’s occupational embezzlement, and the conclusion cannot be different from this conclusion is determined differently from this view, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the tort or the provision of collateral, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Article 463 of the Civil Act that an obligor who delivered another person's goods upon the repayment of debt shall not demand the return of the goods unless the obligor performs the obligation again, but does not purport to demand the return of the goods. Thus, even if the Defendants were delivered the gold of this case from the non-party company based on the security agreement such as the theory of lawsuit, the Defendants cannot refuse the return of the gold of this case on the ground of the above provision against the Plaintiff company that is not the debtor.

Based on the same view, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendants' liability for tort is correct, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 463 of the Civil Code such as the theory of lawsuit

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)