1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance renders the first instance 4 to 11 as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

First, I will examine the argument of bona fide acquisition.

The bona fide acquisition of movable property is premised on an effective transactional act as a system to protect the safety of transaction. Here, the transaction means disposal and acquisition by a juristic act, i.e., transfer of possession by a real right agreement. The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was delivered the movable property of this case to secure the loan claim after lending the loan claim amounting to C as alleged by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was negligent in not knowing that C was not a legitimate owner of the instant movable property at the time of the delivery of the instant movable property.

(O) In addition, the Defendant also has the right to speak that “at the time of delivery of the instant movable from P, the Defendant, as an employee of C, “at the time of delivery of the instant movable property,” the Defendant’s bona fide acquisition is without merit.

Next, I will examine the claim of lien.

According to Article 203 of the Civil Act, when a possessor returns an object of possession, he/she may demand reimbursement of the amount and other necessary expenses disbursed to preserve the object of possession against the person to be restored. However, if the possessor acquires the negligence, he/she does not demand ordinary expenses, and as to the beneficial expenses disbursed by the possessor to improve the object of possession, he/she may demand reimbursement of the amount of expenditure or increased amount in accordance with his/her choice, only when there is an increase in the value thereof. The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is alone.