Criteria for determining whether there is a justifiable reason, which is a requirement for simple satisfaction of the obligation of custody

In a case where there is a large number of right holders who have different interests in the disposition of the goods kept in custody, or the fair price of the goods kept in custody is not easily known, there is no justifiable reason to permit the person with the right to retain in custody to make a simple application for appropriation of the goods kept in custody

Article 322(2) of the Civil Act

Re-appellant

Incheon District Court Order 99Ra957 dated May 22, 2000

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

If there is a large number of right holders who have different interests in the disposition of the goods kept in custody, or if the fair price of the goods kept in custody is not easily known, there is no justifiable reason to permit the person with the right to custody to apply for a simple appropriation of the goods held in custody pursuant to Article 322

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below held that the Re-Appellant's application for simplified appropriation of obligation is justified, since the Re-Appellant's application for simplified appropriation of obligation does not fall under the case of real estate and there are many creditors with respect to the respondent, and it is likely that they have a different understanding of the disposition of the custody property of this case. On the other hand, there is no evidence to determine that the simple appropriation of obligation by the custody property of this case can be permitted. Thus, the simple appropriation of obligation of this case is not permitted, and the court of first instance which dismissed the Re-Appellant's application for simplified appropriation of obligation of this case. In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to simplified appropriation of obligation

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)