Plaintiff 1 Company and 1 (Law Firm Han Law Firm, Attorneys Go Tae-gun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheonghae, Attorneys Im-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 8, 2009

Busan District Court Decision 2006Gahap17853 Decided June 25, 2008

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 100,616,267, and KRW 56,380,381 and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff 2 the amount of KRW 56,380 per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of rendering a judgment of the court of first instance, and KRW 20 per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff withdrawn the request for delivery of the main claimant at the trial, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for damages caused by the conjunctive tort).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why a member of the company stated in this case is that "No. 8-1 through No. 27" was added as evidence of recognition of facts in the first instance court's judgment, and 1.1. The facts are based on Paragraph (f). The non-party 3 corporation received three originals of the above cargo delivery order from △ Customs Brokers Office when it did not possess a bill of lading because it did not pay the import price of the fishery products of this case to the plaintiffs who are exporters, and received three copies of the above cargo delivery order from △ Customs Brokers Office during May 2006 to 10 August 2006. The non-party 1, who is the actual operator of the non-party 3 corporation, was indicted for fraud and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and suspended execution for 2 years on July 8, 2008. The reasons why the plaintiffs added the following judgments in the first instance court's judgment to the above act and cited it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

Although the plaintiffs confirmed that the non-party 4 corporation (the non-party corporation of the judgment of the Supreme Court) was taking out the fishery products of this case and requested the suspension of taking them out, they asserted that the defendant corporation continuously carried out the fishery products of this case without disregarding such a request and infringed on the plaintiffs' ownership of the above fishery products. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant corporation continued taking them out without disregarding the request to suspend taking them out of the non-party 4 corporation. Thus, the above plaintiffs' assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for damages of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-young (Presiding Judge)