beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff acquired the instant movable from the deceased B and the Darox Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Darox”); and (b) transferred KRW 70,370,000 in total to the account in the name of D from October 6, 201 to April 16, 2012, from October 16, 201.
Since then, the Plaintiff acquired 50% shares of the instant movable from the Gloteex on October 15, 201, and became aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had delayed to pay KRW 20 million out of the acquisition price. On February 13, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Dloteex and paid KRW 50% shares of the instant movable.
Therefore, the instant movable is owned by the Plaintiff. Since D occupies the instant movable without a legitimate title, D seeks the return of the instant movable against D.
If D does not dispose of and possess the movable property of this case to a third party, the Plaintiff asserts that it would seek damages equivalent to the market price of the movable property of this case as compensation for damages caused by the tort, but did not add the preliminary claim for payment of money. Therefore, this part is not determined.
(1) In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Plaintiff acquired the instant movable property from D around October 1, 201, and D had no right to transfer the instant movable property to the Defendant and the Round, Inc. at the ratio of 50%, respectively, on March 1, 2011, but the Plaintiff acquired the instant movable property in good faith, and thus, the Plaintiff sought delivery of the instant movable property seized by the network B, who had worked as the person in charge of the Plaintiff’s field management.” However, the Plaintiff’s claim is inconsistent with the content of the preparatory document as of October 29, 2015, which was finally submitted by the first instance court, and thus, the said assertion is deemed withdrawn).2.
A. Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, D occupies the movable property of this case.