beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that he sold benz S50 million won to Defendant B. The Plaintiff introduced benz E300 vehicles owned by Defendant B, seeking to exchange for other vehicles.
The above Benz E30 Vehicle was seized, and the defendant C and E were to resolve the above seizure problem to the plaintiff, and they were forced that the plaintiff lent F KRW 19 million to F and kept the Ecoo G vehicle (hereinafter "the instant vehicle") in custody as security.
As seen above, the Plaintiff was unable to recover KRW 19 million loans to F from the Plaintiff on the wind that the Defendants illegally deprived of the instant vehicle and did not return the said vehicle. The Plaintiff suffered losses from golf loans owned by the Plaintiff and golf loans owned by the Plaintiff, which were kept in the instant vehicle. The amount equivalent to KRW 9 million was not refunded.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 28 million (i.e., golf loans with KRW 19 million and golf loans with KRW 9 million) and damages for delay.
2. The judgment was examined: (a) the Plaintiff sold benz S500 vehicles to Defendant B around April 2013; (b) the Plaintiff exchanged Defendant B with benz E300 vehicles held by D around June 20, 2013; (c) around August 2013, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was seized in Hyundai Capital due to the overdue payment; (d) the Plaintiff and Defendant C, and E were only on September 6, 2013 to resolve the event E30 vehicles; (c) Defendant C and E brought the instant vehicle kept by the Plaintiff in their custody; (d) there was no dispute between the parties; (e) according to the description and pleading of the evidence No. 3, there was no suspicion of the Defendants’ special robbery and special robbery against the Plaintiff; and (e) Defendant C and E did not have any key to the Defendants’ vehicle under his custody in a criminal case against the Plaintiff on June 13, 2014; and (e) Defendant C and E were not subject to a disposition of intimidation in the aforementioned criminal case against the Plaintiff.