1. The Defendant’s KRW 34,136,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 8, 2019 to August 10, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2014, the Defendant registered the transfer of ownership on the instant machinery.

B. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff registered the transfer of ownership on the instant machinery. On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 7 million from C Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff created a mortgage on the instant machinery.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 6 million out of the above loans KRW 7 million to D and consumed the remainder. D.

Around March 26, 2016, the Defendant occupied the instant machinery and sold it to a third party and delivered the instant machinery.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The plaintiff's primary assertion is that the defendant is the possessor of the instant machine, and is obligated to deliver the instant machine to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant machine.

Preliminary, in preparation for the case where the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the instant machinery is impossible, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the market price of the instant machinery, equivalent to KRW 34,136,000 (=36,000 purchase price in 209 x 0.251) equivalent to the remaining rate at the time of the registration of transfer in 2015, and the interest for arrears.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant machinery, and the Defendant was the possessor of the instant machinery, but the Defendant sold the instant machinery to a third party and transferred possession to a third party.

Therefore, the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff was impossible on or around March 26, 2016.

B. The above A.

As seen in this paragraph, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages due to the impossibility of performing the duty of delivery of the machinery of this case.

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of damages that the defendant should compensate, the scope of liability for compensation due to impossibility of performance should be based on the market price of the object at the time of impossibility of performance.