1.The judgment of the first instance, including the primary claims added at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased corporeal movables at the highest price at the auction procedure for corporeal movables; and (b) paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff at the auction procedure for corporeal movables; and (c) received the instant goods at the auction.

B. The instant goods are those located in the lower-class warehouse C in the Namnam-gun, Namnam-gun, and the owner of the said lower-class warehouse was the Defendant at the time of the Plaintiff’s successful bid of the instant goods.

C. Around May 31, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months with prison labor and two years of suspended execution on September 3, 2014 at the Gwangju District Court's Nam Branch, which became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1) primarily prevents the removal of the article of this case, which is owned by the defendant, and acquired or damaged the article of this case. Thus, the defendant shall return the article of this case to the plaintiff and compensate the plaintiff for the amount equivalent to KRW 15 million of the repair cost.

B) Preliminaryly, where the Defendant’s transfer or destruction of the instant goods to a third party and thus it is impossible for the Defendant to return or repair the goods, the Defendant shall return or compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 20 million, which is equivalent to the market price of the instant goods. (2) The Defendant did not interfere with the removal of the instant goods, and did not dispose of the instant goods to another person, and did not destroy the instant goods.

(b) 1) Determination of the primary claim, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 5, and 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply);

Each entry and image alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant possessed the goods of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

§ 2,6 of this title.