[1] Whether a person who actually received the lost article from the Findingr or the chief of a police station, etc., recognized as having the right to claim the recovery of lost article under the Lost Articles Act, constitutes a person liable to pay compensation under the Lost Articles Act (affirmative)

[2] The method of determining the value of goods as the basis for determining the amount of compensation under Article 4 of the Lost Articles Act

[3] The case holding that the value of articles stipulated in Article 4 of the Lost Articles of the Act on Certificates of Deposit is 5% of its face value when calculating the amount of compensation to be paid to a acquisitor of an unregistered certificate of deposit

[1] The obligation to pay compensation under the Lost Articles Act is derived from the factual act that is not a juristic act, but the acquisition and return of things. The above Act provides that the person to receive the return of things is "the person who has the right to claim the recovery of things," and does not limit the recipient to the person who has the real right to the pertinent things. The above law does not require the recipient to claim compensation within one month after returning the things. The period of request is extremely short. It is unreasonable to require the recipient to return the things in advance and to claim compensation by finding the true owner or the right holder of the things returned within one month after the recipient and return of the things. In light of the fact that the lost things are returned again as the lost things, the person who actually takes the duty to pay compensation under the Lost Articles Act is a person who is recognized as the owner or other person who has the right to claim the recovery of things, and is thus recognized as the person who actually takes the duty to pay compensation under the above Act, barring special circumstances.

[2] The amount of compensation under Article 4 of the Lost Articles Act is a compensation for the loss that may have been caused by the loss of the lost article by the inseminator who received the return of the lost article from the inseminator, i.e., the loss that may have been caused by the loss of the article. Thus, the value of the article, which is the standard for the amount of compensation, shall be determined on the basis of the degree of objective danger that the lost person could have been relieved by receiving the return of the lost article, i.e., the amount of the lost article, which is the objective risk that the lost person could have been aware of the loss due to the loss of the lost article

[3] The case holding that when calculating the amount of compensation to be paid to the inseminators of the negotiable certificates of deposit, considering the fact that the face value of the negotiable certificates of deposit is not the value of the negotiable certificates of deposit itself, but the fact that the negotiable certificates of deposit indicates the value of the right to claim a right to claim a right to return a term deposit to the banks represented by the certificates of deposit, and that the degree of objective risk that the inseminators may incur damage is considerably small, the value of the articles stipulated in Article 4 of the

[1] Articles 1, 4, and 6 of the Lost Articles Act / [2] Article 4 of the Lost Articles Act / [3] Article 4 of the Lost Articles Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 67Da389 delivered on May 23, 1967 (No. 15-2, 18)

Plaintiff (Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Jeon Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm City, Attorneys Yoon Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 18, 2009

1. The defendant's compulsory execution based on the payment order in the Seoul Southern District Court 2005 tea707 compensation case against the plaintiff exceeds 1,504,203 won and 5% per annum from April 28, 2005 to July 2, 2009 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. This Court approves a decision to suspend compulsory execution as of February 17, 2009 with respect to the case of the suspension of compulsory execution of 209Kaman336 only to the amount exceeding 1,504,203 won per annum and 5% per annum from April 28, 2005 to July 2, 2009 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

5. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the payment order in the Seoul Southern District Court 2005 tea707 compensation case.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, on March 22, 2005, lost and immediately reported the loss of 100,280,273 won non-party 1 corporation’s Skydo branch’s 100,280,273 won negotiable certificate (hereinafter “instant certificate”). However, on the same day, the Defendant acquired the above certificate of deposit at the entrance of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Skydong (hereinafter omitted)’s 1st floor toilet, and confirmed on March 23, 2005, around 17:00, around 18:00, the Plaintiff submitted it to the 2nd district of Yangcheon Police Station on March 23, 2005, and on March 24, 2005, the Plaintiff entered his name, resident registration number, address, and the address of the non-party 1 corporation in the recipient column at the police station on March 24, 2005.

B. The defendant asserted that he has the right to receive KRW 120,336,327 equivalent to 20% of the above certificates of deposit value from the plaintiff, and filed an application for payment order against the plaintiff as Seoul Southern District Court 2005Hu7707, and the employees of the non-party 1 corporation received the above payment order on April 27, 2005, but the plaintiff did not object to the above payment order, which became final and conclusive on May 12, 2005.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The person liable to return the compensation;

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, as the representative director of the non-party 1 corporation, who is not an individual qualification, received the instant certificate of deposit, which is owned by the above company, asserts that the owner of the obligation to pay compensation under the Real Estate Act is not the non-party 1 corporation and the plaintiff

(2) Relevant statutes

According to the Lost Articles Act, a person who finds a thing that has been lost by another person shall return it to the person who has been lost or who has the right to claim the recovery of the article, or submit it to the police station (including police stations, police boxes, branch offices) or the office of the Autonomous Police Authority of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (Article 1(1)); the chief of the police station shall return it to the person to whom the article is to be returned (Article 1(2)); and the person who has received the return of the article shall pay compensation within the scope of 5/100 to 20/100 of the value of the article (Article 4); and the above compensation shall not be claimed after the lapse of one month after the return of the article (Article 6).

(3) Determination

First of all, as to the receiving entity of the instant certificate of deposit, the Plaintiff entered the address of Nonparty 1 corporation in the recipient column while receiving the instant certificate of deposit, but the name and resident registration number of the recipient are recognized to have been stated, so the subject who received the certificate of deposit is the Plaintiff himself.

Next, we examine whether the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay compensation under Article 4 of the Lost Articles Act constitutes “the person who received the return of an article.” The obligation to pay compensation under the Lost Articles Act is derived from the act of acquiring and returning an article that is not a juristic act. The above Act stipulates the person who is to receive the return of an article as “the person who has the right to claim the recovery of an article,” and does not limit the recipient to the person who has the real right to the article. The above provision does not specify the recipient as “the person who has the right to claim the recovery of the article.” The above provision is extremely short of the period of request by allowing the recipient to claim compensation within one month after returning the article. It is unreasonable to allow the recipient and the person who has no special relation with the acquisition and return of the article to return the article within one month after returning it in advance, and to claim compensation by finding the real owner or the right holder of the article returned within one month, and if the lost article was returned as it is, then the person who actually bears the duty to claim compensation under the Lost Articles Act can be interpreted as the person who actually bears the right to the article.

Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff lost the instant certificate of deposit and received a return in his/her name at the police station, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay compensation to the inseminators in accordance with the Lost Articles Act.

B. Regarding the scope of compensation payment

Article 10(1) and (2) of the Lost Articles Act provides that a person who finds another person's goods in a ship, a vehicle, a building, or any other section in which public passage has been prohibited shall deliver the goods to the manager. In such a case, the possessor of the ship, a vehicle, or a building shall be deemed the possessor of the building, and the compensation shall be half the person who actually acquired the goods and the possessor of the building. In this case, considering the above facts and the overall purport of the arguments in the video of the No. B. 2, the place where the Defendant acquired the instant certificate of deposit is the toilet located inside the main apartment apartment, and the above inside the commercial building is ordinarily managed by the owner of the building. Accordingly, the possessor of the instant certificate of deposit shall be deemed the manager of the above commercial building. However, the defendant is the person who actually acquired the above certificate of deposit and the manager of the commercial building shall claim half the compensation for the above lost goods against the plaintiff, who is the debtor of the above company, and the above manager of the commercial building shall not exercise his right of subrogation against the plaintiff.

C. Regarding the amount of compensation

The Defendant asserts that the entire face value of this case’s certificate of deposit is “value of article” under Article 4 of the Lost Articles Act. However, the above compensation is compensation for damages that may have occurred due to the loss of the article by the lost owner of the article. Thus, since the value of the article is objective danger that the lost owner could be exempted from the return of the lost article. In this case, the Plaintiff’s loss of the certificate of deposit should be determined on the basis of the degree of objective danger that the certificate of deposit would incur damages due to misunderstanding of the third party’s negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da389, May 23, 1967). Since the above compensation is 194, the Plaintiff’s loss of the certificate of deposit is not the value of the certificate of deposit per se but the value of the certificate of deposit per se and the value of the certificate of deposit per se should be determined on the basis that the Plaintiff’s loss of the certificate of deposit per se is the value of the certificate of deposit per se.

In addition, as seen earlier, the Defendant: (a) found the instant certificate of deposit that he discovered in the vicinity of the above commercial building and submitted it to the police station as it is; and (b) considering all other circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the fact that the face value of the said certificate of deposit is very high, the Defendant’s compensation for the instant certificate of deposit is 30,084,078 won (=5,014,013 won x 6) 10% of the total value of the pertinent certificate of deposit; (b) 3,008,407 won, which is 10% of the total value of the goods (i.e., 504,203 won, the compensation to be paid to the Defendant who actually acquired the said certificate of deposit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant 1,504,203 won as compensation for the instant certificate of deposit and to pay 5% interest per annum under the Civil Act from April 28, 2005 to July 2, 2009, which is deemed reasonable for the plaintiff to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to pay to the plaintiff from April 28, 2005, the following day after the payment order of this case was served by the defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore, the payment order of this case as to the above compensation claim is illegal within the limit exceeding the above scope, and thus, it is rejected as the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as there is no ground for rejection.

Judges Kim Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)