beta
Text
All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The plaintiff around June 2008 and around June 2008, a significant portion of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet is harmful to food.
It is necessary to meet the HCCP standards.
(hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant corporeal movables”) purchased 118,743,600 won from D.
B. From August 2008, the Plaintiff was engaged in meat packaging business with F’s trade name while using the above corporeal movables in the building of the fourth floor E on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff from August 2008.
C. The Plaintiff, while managing F, was supplied with Chinese-Japan land from G and bears a total of KRW 102,473,600 from October 18, 201 to June 26, 2012.
Meanwhile, G acquired a claim of KRW 45,590,00 against H to the Plaintiff, thereby bearing the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 148,063,60 in total. D.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred his F business registration to G, and leased all corporeal movables (corporeal movables located in the instant building, including the instant corporeal movables) and the instant building to G during the period from July 23, 2012 to July 22, 2017, with a deposit of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 2,000,000.
E. G received the F business registration from the Plaintiff, and thereafter operated F by taking over the instant building, corporeal movables, etc.
F. After that, on March 24, 2015, the auction procedure for the instant building was initiated, and the instant building was sold to the Defendant on January 25, 2017.
G. On March 2017, G transferred the instant corporeal movables to the Defendant.
The Defendant leased the instant corporeal movables to I and J, and I and J directly occupied the instant corporeal movables while operating K in the instant building.
H. Therefore, the Defendant, the indirect possessor of the instant corporeal movables, is obligated to deliver the instant corporeal movables to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant corporeal movables.
2. The judgment of the court below is based on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the corporeal movables of this case.