beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an owner who has concluded a contract for raising pigs with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and a contract for raising pigs with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) with respect to pigs listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant pigs”), and paid the price in full.
In each of the above contracts, even though they agreed not to dispose of the instant pigs without the Plaintiff’s written consent, D sold the instant pigs to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) without the authority to dispose of them at will, and E did not pay the price in full.
Nevertheless, E has again set up a security for transfer of the instant pigs to the Defendant, and the Defendant raises the instant pigs together with E.
Therefore, there is no validity of the Defendant’s right to transfer a security for the instant pigs, and the Defendant must return the instant pigs to the Plaintiff.
2. If it is intended to request delivery on the ground of an illegal possession, the request shall be made against the person who actually occupies the object, and even if the illegal occupant is an illegal occupant, the request for delivery against a person who does not actually possess the object may not be permitted.
(See Supreme Court Decision 81Da187 delivered on May 10, 1983, and Supreme Court Decision 98Da9045 delivered on July 9, 199, etc.). Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as to the fact that the Defendant directly occupied the pigs of this case is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the defendant seems to possess pigs indirectly. Thus, it cannot be requested to the indirect possessor on the ground of illegal possession. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
Defendant’s assertion (see, e.g., the application for resumption of argument made on April 4, 2018).