The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff as to the claim for damages among them is reversed, and this part of this case is applied.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim seeking compensation for damages equivalent to the value of the said corporeal movables, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the said corporeal movables as listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the lower judgment, which was owned by the Defendant, to be kept in custody by the Defendant with due care as a good manager, even though they had already been sold to another person.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The judgment below

The reasoning and evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below reveal the following facts.

1) Each of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached to the lower judgment owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”).

On August 12, 2010 in the Compulsory Execution Case No. 2010No. 581, the Jeju District Court held that the Defendant, a debtor, purchased the instant corporeal movables with the permission of sale as the applicant for the highest price bid in the presence of the Defendant’s employees L. After that, the instant corporeal movables were sold to D on August 14, 201, at KRW 140 million, and again sold to E on December 1, 201, at KRW 50 million. 2) On December 7, 2011, E filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking delivery of the instant corporeal movables under the Jeju District Court No. 201Ga22183.

The Defendant asserted that he is the lawful owner of the instant corporeal movables in the instant lawsuit, and refused to return the instant corporeal movables, and continued to possess them.

On March 20, 2012, the above court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall deliver the instant corporeal movables to E”.

Although the defendant filed an appeal (No. 2012Na785) and filed an appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84998) against this, the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 20, 2012.

3 E shall be the Plaintiff on August 7, 2013.