1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around October 2012, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 370 scams (hereinafter “the instant vegetation”) from Nonparty C, which was kept in the biochemical area located in Seosan City, Seosan-si (hereinafter “C”). Around July 12, 2013, the Defendant disposed of the instant lecture by thefting it from the Plaintiff and C to another. As such, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by tort. 2) The Plaintiff caused the Plaintiff to keep the instant lecture by E, and the Defendant, a partner of the F, arbitrarily disposed of the instant lecture.

Therefore, F is liable to the Plaintiff for nonperformance, and the Defendant who was a partner is jointly and severally liable with F to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred from the instant occupation disposition.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is F’s ownership, since F was purchased from C.

The Defendant had the money to receive from F, and brought the instant lecture to F with the permission of G, an son of F.

2. 판단 원고는 2013. 6. 3.경 생강판매상인 E가 생강을 샀다가 팔 의향이 없느냐고 하여 2013. 6. 5. E의 농협통장으로 4,000만 원을 송금하였고, E가 이를 C에게 송금하였으므로, 이 사건 생강이 자신의 소유라고 주장한다.

According to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 (including additional numbers), the fact that the plaintiff remitted the above money to E on June 5, 2013, and Eul is recognized, but the fact that the plaintiff paid the above money to E is insufficient to recognize that the instant lecture was owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the claim of this case based on the premise that the school of this case is owned by the plaintiff is without merit without any further examination as to other points.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.