beta
Text
1. The part concerning a claim for delivery of movables in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
The defendant shall enter the attached list in the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with E (hereinafter “E”) under which the Plaintiff would supply steel materials to E and re-supply them to E, and accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied E with each steel material listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant material”).
The Defendant, who held claims against E, tried to go bankrupt, brought the instant materials owned by the Plaintiff at the factory of E.
Therefore, the Plaintiff sought the return of the instant materials from the Defendant based on ownership, and if it is impossible to execute the delivery of the instant materials, the Plaintiff seek payment of KRW 29,483,820, which is equivalent to the market price of the instant materials, and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. The part concerning the claim for delivery of the instant materials 1) The fact that the Defendant used the instant materials in the E factory to secure the claim against E and currently kept is without dispute between the parties. According to the purport of Gap's statement Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, testimony and the entire pleadings by witnesses F, the Plaintiff operating the construction business of the steel structure installation business, etc., the Plaintiff ordered the I Co., Ltd. to use them at the construction site, such as G Co., Ltd. and H Co., Ltd. on March 2016, and allowed E to process the above E., the I Co., Ltd., under a material supply contract with the Plaintiff. After completing the supply of the instant materials to the Plaintiff on March 4, 2016 and March 16, 2016, the I Co., Ltd., who completed the construction business and supplied the remaining parts of the instant materials to the Plaintiff at the construction site without returning them to the Plaintiff as a result of the settlement of the remaining parts under the contract with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.
According to the above facts of recognition, the materials of this case in E factories are owned by the plaintiff, so the defendant is special.