beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person operating the D Company in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, and Defendant B served in the D Company and retired from the office around May 2017.
B. The plaintiff produced the product using each movable property listed in the separate sheet, and supplied it to E company. The person in charge of the transaction was the defendant B.
C. From December 2016, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to discontinue the transaction with E company from Defendant B and E company.
Accordingly, E companies discontinued transactions with the Plaintiff around April 2016 and entrusted the same business to the F companies operated by Defendant C.
In the above process, Defendant B removed, without the Plaintiff’s consent, each movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) possessed by the Plaintiff, and Defendant C supplied products produced after using the instant movable property transferred from Defendant B to E company.
E. Since then, F Company was engaged in the above transactions, and at present, Defendant B produced products using the instant goods and traded with E Company.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Witness G's Testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant article was owned by the Plaintiff, and primarily sought against the Defendants the delivery of the instant article, and the conjunctively sought damages of KRW 40 million, which is equivalent to the price of the instant article, if the delivery of the instant article is impossible.
However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s ownership in light of the overall purport of the evidence presented earlier.
① The Plaintiff stated that “the Plaintiff directly manufactured the instant article in the remarks column of the attached list of the complaint,” and in light of these circumstances, the Plaintiff appears to have asserted that the instant article was owned because it was made by the Plaintiff.
(b).