1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s appeal and the preliminary claim added by this court are dismissed, respectively.

2. Appeal;

1. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, and the following is added after the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the "Evidence No. 23" is added to "Evidence No. 23" in Chapter No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, as well as the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance.

“C. Meanwhile, in the case of Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office 2017 type No. 96239, the checks listed in the attached list No. 2 was seized by Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office 2017 type No. 6896, and the present seized materials are currently kept in the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office.”

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion is the owners of each check listed in the separate sheet No. 1, including the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), H, C, and I. G, etc. obtained by defraudation by G, F, L, etc., and G, etc. deposited the above check with the Defendant Company, and as long as the original was kept by the Defendant Company, it is a stolen, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the original to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party (Appointed Party).

B. If the seizure becomes final and conclusive in a criminal trial without a declaration of confiscation for the seized article that has waived ownership at the stage of investigation, the confiscated person shall be deemed to have cancelled the seizure, and the confiscated person shall be entitled to claim its return as a civil lawsuit against the State (see, e.g., Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da27725, Dec. 22, 2000). As long as the criminal judgment without a declaration of confiscation has not yet become final and conclusive, the seizure of each of the checks of this case has not yet been rescinded, and even after the seizure is deemed to have been cancelled, the confiscated person has the right to claim the return of each of the checks of this case against the State, and therefore,

In addition, the defendant is currently liable for each check that has not been seized only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff (appointed party).