beta
Text
1. Defendant D shall deliver to the Plaintiff movable property listed in the separate sheet.
2. The plaintiff's defendant B, C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures and sells kitchen supplies with the trade name of “E”.
Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is a company that leases 10 floors of the F building fashion hall of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building for the purpose of food business, and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a company that is entrusted by Defendant C with the operation of the above Frate.
Defendant D is a person who contracted the above food testing work from Defendant B and performed the work.
B. On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B for the supply of goods to supply totaling KRW 384,500,000 to the main facilities and equipment to be installed in the instant POC.
Since March 14, 2014, a contract was concluded to supply goods equivalent to KRW 27,00,000,000 respectively, and to supply goods equivalent to KRW 140,000 on March 15, 2014.
C. Each of the above goods supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B includes the following: “All rights of the goods under this contract until the completion of the payment of the price by Party A (Defendant B) shall accrue to Party B [Plaintiff]; and without Party B’s consent, the goods under this contract shall be prohibited from being sold, leased, occupied, transferred, or created a collateral security, and shall not be infringed on Party B’s ownership.”
In accordance with each of the above goods supply contracts, the Plaintiff supplied the main equipment and instruments to the instant Pidco, including movable property listed in the separate sheet from January 20, 2014 to July 25, 2014 (hereinafter “instant goods”).
The Plaintiff and Defendant B determined the total amount of KRW 569,250,000 (including value-added tax) in total, and the amount of the goods currently unpaid is KRW 175,050,000, and the said amount constitutes the value of the goods of this case.
E. Meanwhile, Defendant D asserted the right of retention based on the claim for construction price against Defendant B, and currently occupies the instant food crate including the instant goods.
[Reasons for Recognition]