[물품인도청구사건][고집1974민(1),225]
A party eligibility of a person who is not the actual transaction party
The plaintiff is qualified as a party as long as he/she claims that he/she is a party to the transaction and claims the delivery of goods.
Article 227 of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Korea Communications Corporation and 1 other
Daegu District Court of the first instance (72 Gohap938)
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendants jointly and severally deliver to the plaintiff the 42.638kiggs of the non-mark 42.638kigs.
If it is impossible to execute the delivery of the above goods, the amount of money shall be paid according to the value of KRW 350 per pool.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.
A provisional execution may be carried out only under paragraph (1).
The original judgment is the same as the cancellation and claim of the original judgment.
The Defendants’ legal representative, as a defense of safety, is the parties to the instant transaction, and the Plaintiff is not a natural person, and the Plaintiff is not a party, and the Plaintiff is not a party, and the instant lawsuit should be dismissed. However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserted that it is a party to the instant transaction, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff is a party to the instant transaction, and thus, the Defendant’s legal representative’s defense
In full view of the statements Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 1 and Nos. 3-1 and 2-2, each of the above witnesses’ testimony, for which authenticity is recognized by Non-Party 1’s testimony as to the merits of this case, the plaintiff operated the non-Party Yangyang Industrial Co., Ltd. from 1960 to the whole purport of the party’s pleading, while keeping two of the above non-party company’s warehouse under the custody contract with the non-party Yangyang Industrial Co., Ltd., which was sent to the above non-party company under the above non-party company’s custody contract with the non-party Yangyang Industrial Co., Ltd., the defendant company may, at the request of the plaintiff, recognize the fact that the defendant company carried them out at the above non-party company’s warehouse, and the defendant company did not return 1,000 g above 1,000 gs of the plaintiff’s possession and the defendant company’s non-party 2 did not have any other obligation to return the above 1 and the defendant 2's deposited.
Therefore, the above two associations are sought to deliver to the defendants, and the plaintiff's claim for the main claim against the plaintiff who is claiming the object of the non-delivery execution is without merit, and thus, the original judgment is just in conclusion. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed by the Civil Procedure Act Article 384, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the bearing of the costs of lawsuit.
Judges Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)