logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.05.12 2016나6192
유체동산인도
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3.The ancillary.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Each of the instant movables was owned by D, and D entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on October 30, 2015, under which the instant movables were transferred in KRW 2 million, and on November 22, 2015, the instant movables were transferred in KRW 7.50,000, respectively.

The Defendants received 1/2 shares of Seo-gu F, G, and H land, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”) from Daejeon District Court E in the real estate auction case around June 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 27, 2015, where each of the instant movable property is located.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 (if the number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and assertion by the parties to judgment, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff is the owner of each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of this case and sought delivery of each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of this case against the defendants who are possessing each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of this case.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that each of the instant movables is an accessory or accessory to the instant land, and that the Defendants acquired the ownership of each of the instant movables by acquiring the ownership of the instant land at the above auction procedure, and thus, they do not have any obligation to deliver it.

Judgment

The transfer of ownership of movable property becomes effective when it is handed over (Article 188(1) of the Civil Act). The issue of whether the delivery of movable property was made depends on whether the transferor's manager's possession of movable property can be evaluated as being transferred to the control of the transferee while maintaining its identity.

arrow