(a) Infringement of ownership and compensation for damage;

B. The omission of judgment

(a) A person who uses goods of another person as a pledged on his own obligation, notwithstanding the terms and conditions of the pledge agreement, has a legal obligation to remove the owner from interference with the performance of ownership by means of satisfaction of his obligation or by any other means, and thereby causes damage to the owner due to non-performance of such obligation, he shall be liable to compensate for

B. As the cause of the claim, the decision of the court below that the plaintiff's performance of the obligation in addition to the assertion of tort as a preparatory document in the court below has been reversed as it judged only the facts about the tort and rejected the plaintiff's claim immediately.

Article 709 of the Civil Act, Article 395 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju District Court Decision 200Hun-Ga185 delivered on February 6, 1953

The original judgment shall be destroyed, and this case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff's agent, etc. acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff's 2-year tort against the non-party 1 was against the non-party 2, and that the defendant et al. did not have the right to consent to the second-year tort against the non-party 2, and it can be confirmed that the non-party 1 was the owner of the security and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's right.

The third point is that the plaintiff's assertion in the court below as compensation for damages caused by the non-performance of obligation was clearly sub-paragraph 2, and there are two arguments. As discussed in the first point, the first point is that the defendant et al. offered the plaintiff-owned ship to his debt security by the defendant et al. without the plaintiff's consent and infringed on the plaintiff's exercise of ownership. The defendant et al. asserted that the defendant et al. had the obligation to return to the plaintiff completely without the infringement. In addition, when the plaintiff becomes aware of the fact that the defendant et al. had not set the due date, the defendant et al. had the non-party 3 of February 7, 4286 requested the performance of the obligation to return the well-owned ship. The defendant et al. had the defendant et al. bear the legal responsibilities from this point, so it could not be relieved of the obligation due to the non-performance of the duty to return the ship due to the non-performance of the duty to return it to the defendant et al.

On the other hand, the court below explained that the plaintiff had no ground for the duty to return the ship between the plaintiff and the defendant because it is clear that the non-party 1 occupied by the non-party 6's agent at the time of the plaintiff's claim for the return of the former 6-year vessel, and therefore, the defendant et al. did not have any obligation to return the ship under the law. On the other hand, the court below determined that the non-party 1 occupied the ship at the time of the plaintiff's claim for the return of the first 6-year vessel, which was not the first 6-year vessel's right to demand the return of the former 7-year vessel's debt and the first 6-year vessel's debt repayment, which was the first 6-year vessel's right to demand the return of the former 6-year vessel's debt and the first 7-year vessel's debt repayment, which was the first 6-year vessel's right to demand the return of the plaintiff's debt under the law, which was the first 6-year vessel's right to return.

In order to prove the difference, A No. 2 was shipped. The contract between the original defendant, etc. asserted by the plaintiff is a kind of damage security contract whereby the defendant, etc. takes over all risks that may have occurred in the future due to the missing of the main ship of this case against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's damage in the event of the expiration of the above search period will be compensated by the plaintiff's choice for the substitute or the compensation for the substitute. The contract was concluded by the original defendant's free will, so long as the contract was concluded by the original defendant's free will, the defendant, etc. is bound to be liable to compensate by the principle of freedom of legal act. Nevertheless, the court below erred by omitting the judgment of the previous trial as to the proof of the plaintiff's assertion and the evidence No. 2.

(1) While recognizing the fact that the defendant et al. provided 16,00 won debt of the defendant et al. to the non-party 1 with the non-party 2's consent that the defendant et al. did not have the right to dispose of the plaintiff's vessel as the crew of the plaintiff's vessel, the defendant et al. determined that the defendant et al. did not have the right to dispose of the plaintiff's vessel as the pledged article on the non-party 1,600 won debt of the defendant et al., but the defendant et al. used other person's goods as the pledged article on his own debt did not have the right to dispose of the plaintiff's vessel, the defendant et al. has the legal obligation to remove interference with the exercise of ownership by repayment of the debt to the owner and by other means, and if the non-performance of this obligation causes damage to the owner, the decision of the court below is not sufficient to mislead the legal principles as to it, and if the plaintiff et al. provided the plaintiff's claim for damages for the non-party 2 as the plaintiff's claim for damages.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)