logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2016가단56784
애완견 반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 4, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased a pet dog in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant pet dog”) in the United States and donated it to Nonparty C.

B. In order to marry on January 2012, the Plaintiff and C returned to the U.S. to move back the instant pet dog and live at the Defendant’s home, the mother of C, and returned to the U.S. on or around August 2012 after marriage.

C. The Plaintiff and C returned to Korea after purchasing two pet dogs in the United States. C returned to Korea on July 2015 after having purchased one pet dog, and the Plaintiff returned to Korea on September 2015 after having returned to Korea.

In March 2016, Plaintiff and C moved to another place and moved to the same place. The instant pet dog is moving to the Defendant until the date of the closing of the argument in this case.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case is that the plaintiff purchased and gifts to C, and the plaintiff and C left the defendant temporarily while studying together with the plaintiff and C, and thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver this to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion was owned by Nonparty C, but C returned to the United States around August 2012 and transferred to the mother, the Defendant.

3. Although the first owner of the instant pet dog was Nonparty C or C, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the instant pet dog as his/her own intent, and the Plaintiff and C have exceeded the possession of the instant pet dog back to the United States on August 2012, and purchasing and raising 2 pet dog in the United States, even when the Plaintiff and C have returned to the United States on August 2012, 2015, it appears that there was no attempt to go back the instant pet dog or to demand the Defendant to deliver the instant pet dog until they returned to the Republic of Korea on July 2015, and from July 2015 to March 2016.

arrow