Whether it constitutes a tort for failing to notify co-owners of the deposited goods of the fact in an auction under Articles 163 and 67 (1) of the Commercial Act, thereby losing an opportunity to participate in the auction procedure.

The defendant company had lost the opportunity for the plaintiff et al. to participate in the auction procedure against the plaintiff et al. by conducting the voluntary auction procedure against the plaintiff et al. by means of service, even though the plaintiff et al. had been aware of the joint ownership of the plaintiff et al. already gathered and the address of the plaintiff et al. before applying for auction against the mother land. Therefore, this constitutes a tort in relation to

Articles 163, 165, and 67 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant Co., Ltd and three others

Seoul Central District Court (67Ga14040) in the first instance trial

1. The part against Defendant 2 of the original judgment against the plaintiff, etc. and the part against the defendant corporation shall be revoked, and this part shall be altered as follows:

2. Defendant Co., Ltd and Defendant 2 shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 1,300,000 won with an amount equal to five percent per annum from January 27, 1968 to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff et al.'s remaining claims against the defendant company and defendant 2 are dismissed.

4. The appeal against the plaintiff et al. against the defendant 3 and 4 and the appeal against the plaintiff et al. of the defendant corporation are dismissed.

5. Of the litigation costs, the costs of the first and second instances incurred between the plaintiff et al. and the defendant et al. and the defendant et al. shall be five minutes, and the remaining costs shall be borne by the plaintiff et al., and the costs of appeal incurred between the plaintiff et al. and the remaining defendant et al. shall

6. This decision can be provisionally executed with respect to the plaintiffs' winning part through the first and second trials.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff et al. an amount of 6,706,100 won and 5% per annum from January 27, 1968 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be jointly and severally borne by the defendant, etc. and a declaration of provisional execution are sought (the change of claim at the trial).

1. The attorney of the plaintiff et al. has cancelled the part against the plaintiff et al. from the original judgment and sought a modification as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. The agent of the defendant corporation shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, etc.

1. First, we judge the plaintiff's claim against the defendant corporation (hereinafter referred to as the defendant corporation) and the defendant 2.

(A) The defendant company is a company for the purpose of the warehouse storage business, etc., and in numerical value of the 420 boxes from the plaintiff 2 on December 14, 1965, the storage fees are divided into 15 won per one box, the storage period is agreed at the end of February 1966, and at the same time the certificate of cargo storage was issued and delivered to the plaintiff 2 on August 21, 1967. The defendant company conducted the auction procedure against the plaintiff 2 by public notice on the ground that the plaintiff 2's address cannot be known in order to cover the repayment of the storage fees for the above goods in arrears, and the auction procedure was initiated by public notice on September 1, 196, and there was no dispute between the defendant company and the plaintiff 2 on September 2, 1967, after deducting the 2,505,000 won from the auction fees and the remaining 304,005,000 won from the auction fees and the remainder of the defendant company's auction proceeds.

(B) The above legal representative of the plaintiff et al. is jointly owned by the plaintiff et al. for convenience. The defendant company did not have an opportunity to participate in the auction procedure against the plaintiff et al. by public notice despite the fact that the defendant et al. were jointly owned by the plaintiff et al. for convenience. The plaintiff et al. did not have an opportunity to participate in the auction procedure by public notice. Thus, since the defendant et al. lost an opportunity to share the auction price of 8,820,00 won by public notice, it is argued that the defendant et al. would claim payment of damages incurred by the auction of 2,50 won by public notice of the plaintiff et al. (the above defendant et al., the defendant et al., the defendant et al., the defendant et al. did not have an opportunity to share the plaintiff et al.'s remaining address after the second public notice of the plaintiff et al. al., the defendant et al.'s remaining address after the second public notice of delivery of the plaintiff et al.

According to the above facts, even if the defendant company had been aware of the facts that the plaintiff et al. had already been shared and the address of the plaintiff et al. before applying for auction on the mother land of this case, the defendant company lost the opportunity to participate in the auction procedure against only the plaintiff et al. by means of service by public notice. Thus, this constitutes a tort in relation to the plaintiff et al. ( although the name of the tenant is only two separate persons, the subject matter of this case is not a claim for legal act due to deposit but for infringement on jointly owned property, and it does not affect the conclusion that the plaintiff et al. did not indicate it as the consignee.) because the defendant company had a duty to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff et al., and the defendant et al., the representative director of the defendant company, et al., did not bear the liability for the defendant's voluntary auction charges even after the expiration of the period of sale by public notice (see Article 35 (1) of the Civil Act). This does not include the plaintiff et al., the defendant company and the defendant company's non-appellant's liability for damages.

(C) Therefore, if we gather the testimony of the non-party 7, which can be established as a result of the fact inquiry conducted by the party members, as to the amount of damages, it can be recognized that the amount of the above damages is 3,00 won per annum as of September 1967; the fact that the amount per annum is 3,00 won; the fact that the amount of the above 40 won is 7% per annum from the witness's testimony of the non-party 1; the portion which is contrary to the above recognition price at the time of the above 16th of 7th of 7th of 1967 ; the total amount of the above 40 won was 8,820,00 won x 420 won x 16th of 96th of 96th of 1967 ; the fact that the above amount was 16th of 9th of 96th of 196 ; the above amount was 5th of 16th of 196th of 20.

However, even if the plaintiff et al. is liable for the above damages to the defendant company, the defendant company's legal representative did not pay the above compensation for the damages after the lapse of one year. Since January 1, 1966, the agreement fees for the storage fees for the plaintiff et al. increased to 55 won per box, the defendant company shall set the above storage fees for the plaintiff et al. within the limit of the agreement fees as 15 won under the initial agreement for six months after the expiration of the period of storage, and 30 won for six months thereafter, and 50 won thereafter, the fees for the storage to be paid by the plaintiff et al. are more than 596,40 won. However, although the plaintiff et al. did not deliver the goods after the expiration of the period of storage, it cannot be proved that the agreement was reached after the expiration of the period of storage fees for the plaintiff et al., and there is no sufficient evidence that the agreement was made after the expiration of the period of storage fees for the defendant company's agreement.

"Second, if the plaintiff et al. received goods from another person at least from March 15, 1966 to September 15, 1967 due to the failure of the plaintiff et al. to deliver the goods until the expiration of the contract period, the defendant corporation could obtain income by the rate of 55 won per each unit of storage fees, which is the storage fees, from 831,600 won per unit of the above agreement. However, since the defendant et al. suffered damages for the loss of import of KRW 831,60, the above recognition amount should be offset against the amount equal to the amount of losses. However, the defendant corporation did not prove that there was a circumstance that the defendant corporation could have the goods such as the goods kept from another person after the expiration of the contract period for the storage of the goods. This is not justified because the testimony by the non-party 5 (2) witness of the court below alone is insufficient.

"Third, according to the above defendant company's warehouse business regulations, the above defendant company's legal representative can claim two times the amount of the agreed storage fees for the goods whose contract period has expired. The defendant company acquired the same amount of damages in addition to the agreed storage fees, and the plaintiff et al. shall be deemed to have consented thereto at the time of keeping the above goods in custody in the defendant company. In other words, the above evidence No. 1 of the above defendant company (in particular, "the cargo shall be kept in custody under the company warehouse business regulations," the above evidence No. 13 of the defendant company's 12 (Dong), and the above witness's testimony and pleading of the non-party 5 of the defendant company's warehouse business regulations, and if the above witness's testimony and pleading of the above witness's non-party 2 of the defendant company's warehouse business regulations were collected, the defendant company shall be deemed to have agreed to set off the above amount of damages x 2 of the agreed storage fees x 160 times the above amount of damages x 1666 months of the defendant company's liability.

Therefore, the defendant company's liability for damages that the defendant company bears to the plaintiff company is set off from the above amount of 6,706,100 won, which is set off from the above amount of 226,80 won, and the remaining amount of 6,479,300 won, and the defendant 2 also bears the liability for damages of the same amount.

(D) However, as seen earlier, since the occurrence of the above damages is substantially competition with the Plaintiff, etc. as well as their negligence, it is reasonable to set off the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendant, etc. according to the degree of negligence as KRW 1,300,000.

2. Next, we examine the claim against the defendant 3 and 4 of the plaintiff et al.

On December 14, 1965, the plaintiff et al.'s attorney kept 15 won per box of 420,000,000,000 won per two installments per month, and the period of custody on February 30, 1966. However, although all of the plaintiff et al. were aware of the address of the defendant company, the above defendant et al., a director of the defendant company, et al., made a request for voluntary auction of the above goods to the Seoul Central District Court on August 21, 1967, after the board of directors of the defendant company decided to make a request for auction of the above goods by public notice to the plaintiff et al., and it is difficult for the plaintiff et al. to believe that the above request for auction had been made on September 4, 1967 by public notice to the plaintiff 2, and it is difficult for the court below to acknowledge that the above request for auction was made on the premise of the difference between the non-party 1's witness and the non-party 2's opinion.

3. In the same way, the defendant company and the defendant 2 are obligated to pay delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum from January 27, 1968 to the full payment date on the records that the plaintiff et al. are the 1,300,000 won of the above recognition as well as the 1,300,000 won for the above recognition as sought by the plaintiff et al., so the plaintiff et al.'s claim against the defendant company and the defendant 2 shall be justified within the above recognition range, and the remaining claim against the plaintiff et al. against the defendant et al. shall be dismissed, and the remaining claim against the plaintiff et al. against the defendant company and the defendant 2 shall be dismissed, because the original judgment against the plaintiff et al., which differs from the above judgment of the court, is unfair, and the part of the judgment against the plaintiff et al. against the defendant et al. against the defendant is revoked under Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and the judgment against the plaintiff et al. shall be dismissed under Article 986 of the above judgment.

Justices Park Jong-su (Presiding Justice)