1. Of the monetary payment in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders payment below.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the selective claims added at the court of first instance as described in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 42

2. Possession of goods for determination on tort liability refers to an objective relationship that can be deemed as a factual control under the social concept. In order to be de facto control, physical and real control is not necessarily required to be determined in accordance with the social concept, taking into account time, spatial and principal rights relations with the goods, possibility of interference with others. Thus, whether the goods are de facto controlled or not should be determined in accordance with the social concept as above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da74949, Jan. 27, 2012). According to the written evidence Nos. 6 and 7, it is deemed that the Plaintiff replaced the entrance door of the store of this case on July 21, 2017, and that the Defendant appears to have been holding as the first 5th 1st st 7th 1st st st son 10th st st son 200 st 1st st st st st 2017.