Where a ship seized as evidence in a criminal case against the violation of the Customs Act is stolen after the seizure disposition is cancelled, the time of applying for compensation and the time of compensation for the shipowner.

If a seizure disposition against a seized ship is cancelled, the custodian should return it to the owner, and if the whereabouts of the owner is unknown due to the theft, the owner should compensate the owner for the market value of the ship at the time of cancellation of the seizure disposition.

Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 66Da1684 decided Dec. 6, 1966 (Civil Code 763(27), 574 Ka1690) decided Sept. 28, 1965 (Civil Code 763(34), 574 Ka1738, 13 ② 160) decided Dec. 6, 1966

Plaintiff

Countries

Busan District Court (Law Firm 4293 civilians816)

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of 2.5 million Won with an annual rate of 5 percent from January 20, 4294 to the full repayment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant through the first and second trials.

The defendant litigation performer shall revoke the judgment of the first instance.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff representative's judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials is based on the judgment of the Dong branch and the declaration of provisional execution.

The substance of the plaintiff's statements is that the plaintiff's agent was the plaintiff's new vessel to be returned at the end of 4292.9, and the plaintiff's vessel was the plaintiff's main vessel to be 1 and operated in Busan's inshore, and the plaintiff was mooring the vessel to the 3-dong coast of Busan's 4293.0, but the non-party 1 did not know of the plaintiff's request from the non-party 2 at the end of 8:00 .0 .0 .0 . 7 . 10 . 200 . 4 . 7 . 1 5 . 1 2 . 3 1 5 2 . 3 1 5 2 . 3 1 2 5 2 . 3 1 5 1 2 . 3 1 5 2 , the plaintiff's office's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's office and the defendant 2 3 1 2 .

As a method of proof, the plaintiff's agent submitted the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 to 4, 3-1 to 3, and 4 of the same evidence Nos. 3, and the testimony of Non-party 4, 5, and 6 of the original trial witness, and the defendant's litigation performer recognized the establishment of the evidence Nos. 1 and 4 and recognized the evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as the site of this evidence.

On May 27, 4293, the vessel was confiscated as evidence of a criminal case against the violation of the Customs Act, and kept by Nonparty 3, the head of the office having jurisdiction over Busan District Office, Busan District Office, the Defendant’s agency. On December 12, 4293, the removal of the seizure of the vessel from December 12, 4293 and the decision to return the vessel to the Plaintiff was not returned, but on November 13, 4293, the fact that the vessel was stolen and its whereabouts were unknown as of November 13, 4293 is still stolen, and there is no dispute between the parties, the court below’s witness 7, and Nonparty 5’s testimony and testimony, and the contents of the evidence No. 2 No. 2-1 through 4, and No. 3-1 through 3 are included, and the vessel is owned by the Plaintiff, and the market value of the vessel around December 4293, can be recognized as equivalent to 250,000,000.

Therefore, since it is apparent that the Plaintiff was unable to return the vessel as it was stolen, and thereby caused the damage at the present market price of the vessel at that time, the Defendant is obliged to additionally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of damage 2.5 million won as well as damages for delay based on the rate of five-fifths per annum from January 20, 4294 to the date of complete payment, clearly stating that it is the next day of the delivery of the instant complaint.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is well-grounded, the plaintiff has amended the purport of the claim to the court of first instance, so it is unnecessary to revise the judgment as stated in the order of the court of first instance and make a declaration of provisional execution. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 92 of the

Judges Lee Jong-il (Presiding Judge)