Cases of failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations with respect to requests for delivery of specific objects based on the right to claim the return;

According to the records, the court below acknowledged the fact that this case's timber was delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff and dismissed the claim for the return of this case's timber, which is based on the premise of the deposit contract, because there is no evidence to prove that the legal relation which is the cause of delivery is the contract of custody, and therefore, the plaintiff rejected the claim for the return of this case's timber, which is based on the premise of the deposit contract. If this case's timber is owned by the plaintiff, unless the court below recognizes the fact that it is delivered to the defendant, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant occupies the above timber without legal grounds, so the defendant occupies the above timber even if it is not acknowledged in the deposit contract which is the cause of delivery, and the court below should deliberate and decide on this point by clearly clarifying whether the plaintiff's assertion is the plaintiff's right of claim for the return

Article 213 of the Civil Act; Article 390 of the Civil Act; Article 126(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

B.BAD Eup Housing Construction Cooperatives

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 66Na461 delivered on June 9, 1967

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Judgment on the Plaintiff’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the legal relationship underlying the delivery of the original wood is a deposit contract, while recognizing the fact that the original timber was delivered to the defendant from the plaintiff, and therefore, the claim for the return of the original timber, which is based on the premise of the deposit contract, is groundless. According to the records, if the original timber delivered to the defendant is owned by the plaintiff, so long as the court below recognizes the fact that the original timber was delivered to the defendant, the defendant does not possess the original timber without any legal ground, so even if there is no contract for the deposit which is the cause of delivery, unless there is a separate circumstance, the defendant occupies the original timber. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the return of the original timber, which is based on ownership, should not be cited as the right to claim the return of the original timber. Therefore, the court below should clearly specify whether the plaintiff's claim for the return of the original timber was made, and therefore, it is not possible to reverse the plaintiff's claim for the above compensation for damages.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Na-dong, Ma-dong, and Ma-dong, the last Ma-man