1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached list.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Indication of claims: To describe the cause of claims and the changed cause of claims in attached Form; and

2. Judgment by public notice on determination of the request for extradition (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. The Plaintiff, as to the subject claim, filed a preliminary claim for reimbursement equivalent to the value of the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the movable property of this case”), if the obligation to deliver them is impossible, but the obligee’s claim for reimbursement is filed by combining the subject claim in addition to the compensatory damages to be substituted by the obligee’s claim for reimbursement, on the premise that the original claim for reimbursement exists, and the subject claim is filed by combining the subject claim on the premise that the original claim for reimbursement is impossible before the judgment becomes final and conclusive, or that it becomes impossible to execute it after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the consolidation between the two claims shall be deemed as falling under the current claim for payment and the simple

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Da450, Jul. 22, 1975; 2005Da39013, Jan. 27, 2006). In addition, even where the pertinent claim was joined in the preliminary claim for benefit, the determination of the preliminary claim may not be omitted solely on the ground that the original claim for benefit was accepted, even if the pertinent claim was joined in the preliminary claim for benefit.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 75Da308 Decided May 13, 1975, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da3066, 30673 Decided August 18, 201, etc.). Accordingly, the instant claim is deemed a simple combination and determination.

On the other hand, the right to claim is an effect of impossibility of performance, and it is an interpretation that is recognized separately from the creditor's right to claim compensation for compensatory damages and the right to cancel a contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da4581, May 12, 1992). Since the claim for extradition of the movable of this case has the nature of a real right claim as the right to claim the return of the movable of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner, there is no room

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da28604 Decided May 17, 2012.