1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of premise;

A. On October 25, 2005, the Plaintiff offered the precious metal owned by the Plaintiff as security and borrowed KRW 2,000,000 from the Defendant as interest rate of KRW 100,000 per month, and due date of repayment on December 25, 2005, to the Defendant, who jointly operated the pawnpo, “E” with the Defendant’s husband D and “E”.

B. However, on November 14, 2007, the Plaintiff failed to repay the principal and interest of the loan until the above maturity date, and the Defendant appropriated the entire precious metal owned by the Plaintiff as collateral at the time of the above borrowing to repay the loan by the method of disposal.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, among the precious metals listed in the pawn sheet, 18 K Bags (maripags) and 45 dugs (maripags) and 14 K Bags (e.g., 24 dugs) are merely the deposited goods, and the remainder precious metal (hereinafter “tally precious metal”) are merely the deposited goods. The Defendant’s refusal to return it was unfairly acquired, and thus, the Plaintiff sought the return of the amount equivalent to the market value.

In this regard, the defendant is all pawned articles, and the plaintiff did not pay the principal and interest of the pawned article, which is the disposal of the pawned article.

B. There is no indication that the issue precious metal is not the pawned article in the pawned section or the pawned section, and it is very exceptional that the pawned article is deposited with precious metal, not the pawned article. There is no direct evidence corresponding to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the issue precious metal is the deposited article, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the existence of the bailed contract only with the statement of evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without any need for further review.

Although the pawned Business Act was repealed on March 31, 1999, the pawned Business Act is prohibited (Article 339 of the Civil Act). However, the Commercial Act permits the pawned Business Act (Article 59 of the Commercial Act), and the reason for the repeal of the pawned Business Act is rather than the purpose of prohibiting pawned Business.