1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs wholesale and retail business, such as refrigerating, with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

B. On January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E, the Defendant’s father, to manufacture and install one cooling house for storage of food on the first floor of the D’s factory building and receive KRW 30 million as the installation cost (hereinafter “instant installation contract”), and around that time, the Plaintiff completed the production and installation of cooling house under the said installation contract (hereinafter “instant cooling house”).

C. On January 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E and D seeking payment of the unpaid installation costs under the instant installation contract, and the judgment of the court below that “E and D jointly pay the Plaintiff KRW 27 million and its delay damages (Seoul District Court 2016Gadan2945).” On December 21, 2017, the appellate court rendered a judgment that “E and D jointly pay the Plaintiff 19,136,437 won and its delay damages,” and the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive around that time.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 19,136,437 out of the 30,000,000 installation costs of the cooling house under the instant installation contract. Thus, according to the special agreement on the reservation of ownership stipulated in the said installation contract, the ownership of the cooling house in the instant case is owned by the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, D sold a factory building owned by the above company and disposed of it to the cooling house of this case established in the above factory. Since D's representative director, the defendant, either intentionally or by negligence, caused damage to the plaintiff by disposing of cooling house owned by the plaintiff, it shall be in accordance with Article 401 of the Commercial Act.