(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.03.20 2019가단203476

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.03.20 2019가단203476

동산인도 청구

Text

1. Each request for extradition against movables listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8 among the instant lawsuits is made.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff is primarily responsible for the delivery of movable property listed in the separate sheet based on ownership.

B. In a lawsuit for performance aimed at a specific object, whether or not the plaintiff claims to specify the subject matter shall be determined by not only by the purport of the claim but also by the whole process of pleadings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2819, 2820, Apr. 25, 1988). A claim for which the purport of the claim is not specified shall be deemed unlawful.

The movables listed in Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8 in the No. 1, 2, 5, and 8 among the movables listed in the attached list are not found in the records that can identify the subject in terms of standard, brand, color, etc.

Therefore, each claim seeking the delivery of the above movables among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful.

C. Meanwhile, among the movables listed in the separate sheet, the movables listed in the Nos. 3 and 4 may be deemed to have been identified as a Nama, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff is the owner and the fact that the Defendant possessed it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

Therefore, this part of the primary claim is without merit.

2. The Plaintiff, as to the preliminary claim, seeks compensation for the value of the ancillary claim in preparation for the case where the obligation to deliver the movables listed in the separate sheet is impossible to be fulfilled.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of movable property listed in the attached list, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On the other hand, even if the Plaintiff assumed that ownership of these movables is recognized, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff was disposed of by the Defendant at will, but that there was a duty to keep them in custody to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence

Therefore, the conjunctive.

참조판례

-대법원 1988. 4. 25. 선고 87다카2819, 2820 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.03.20 2019가단203476

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.07.10 2019가단218980

-서울서부지방법원 2015.12.16 2015가단22031

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.03.06 2018가단14108

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.02.11 2014가단6398