logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.10.08 2018가단56697
반려견 반환 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B was difficult for three months as the owner of the instant return dog around 2012.

B. Around May 2017, the instant companion dog was protected at Jeju-do Organic Animal Protection Center.

C. The Jeju-do Organic Animal Protection Center contacted Defendant B, the owner of the animal protection system registered, and the Plaintiff, the owner of the private village, who was contacted by Defendant B, found the Jeju-do Organic Animal Protection Center on May 10, 2017. The employee in charge of the Jeju-do Organic Animal Protection Center confirmed Defendant B’s identification card stored in the Plaintiff’s cell phone, and delivered the instant return dog to the Plaintiff.

Defendant B received the instant return dog from the Plaintiff on February 12, 2018, and entrusted it to Defendant C, his father.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff (1) The instant return dog was delivered to the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was protected by the Jeju-do Organic Animal Protection Center as it was difficult for the Plaintiff to have become the deceased who received the ownership transfer from Defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant B lost the ownership of the instant return dog.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is the person to whom the instant companion dog was delivered at the Jeju-do Organic Animal Protection Center, and at the time of such delivery, the Plaintiff is also the person who signed and sealed the instant companion dog on the certificate of return stating, “I confirm that he/she is the owner of the relevant animal, and if it is proved that he/she is not the owner,

Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the return dog of this case in accordance with Article 249 (Bona Fide Acquisition) of the Civil Code.

(2) Even if the owner at the time of the instant return dog’s protection at the Jeju-do Organic Animal Protection Center, Defendant B was living in Seoul after university graduation and did not have to raise the instant return dog because it was a public official examination.

arrow