1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 17, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E, who is the actual operator of Kimhae-si C (hereinafter “the instant household store”), to transfer the instant household store’s facility parts and business rights to the Plaintiff, if he/she fails to repay the loan debt owed by E to the Plaintiff by September 17, 2011.

B. As E fails to repay the above loan debt by September 17, 201, the Plaintiff received the instant furniture point from E on September 18, 2011.

C. The Defendant supplied the instant household to the instant household store, and a person who filed a lawsuit against F, the business title of the instant household store, to claim the payment of the price of goods, and the F and E jointly and severally paid the Defendant KRW 24 million to the Defendant.

On November 11, 2011, the Defendant executed a seizure on corporeal movables located in the instant household store with the original copy of the said conciliation protocol as an executive title.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had taken over the instant furniture from E, and had F/E enforcement title, and had the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables seized.

As the Plaintiff failed to operate the instant furniture for a considerable period of time, the value of corporeal movables in the instant furniture was extinguished, and the amount of KRW 20 million was deducted from the lease deposit of the instant furniture to the next rent.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and its delay damages, which the Plaintiff sought, among the total sum of KRW 28.5 million in corporeal movables value and KRW 20 million in lease deposit which was not returned, for damages caused by tort, KRW 48.5 million in total (the value of corporeal movables KRW 28.5 million in lease deposit at KRW 28.5 million).

B. We examine the judgment of the Plaintiff.