2. The costs of lawsuit shall be all principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

A. On September 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) received delivery of ten gold-type 10 of the instant gold-types (attached Nos. 1 through 8) from C operating “B” around September 2014, as a company operating a factory on 14-ro 22-ro, Seogu, Seogu, Seogu, Daegu-gu, and engaged in the manufacture, sale, etc. of plastics; and (b) stored in the said factory.

B. In addition, around April 2015, the Plaintiff received two gold-types (attached Form 9, 10) from D (the establishment of the Defendant and the representative director appointed on June 1, 2015) among the gold-types of this case from the Plaintiff and kept them in the above factory.

C. The Defendant from August 17, 2015 to the same year

9. Until February 2, 90, the Plaintiff requested the delivery of the instant gold paper by visiting the Plaintiff’s factory directly or sending cooperation documents.

However, the Plaintiff did not receive compensation from the Defendant for the development stage of gold punishment and the time and effort of sampling, and did not receive the price for supply for July and August 2015, and refused to deliver the instant gold paper.

E. Accordingly, around September 2, 2015, around 05:45, the Defendant’s representative director D found the Plaintiff’s factory as an employee of the Defendant, E, etc., and carried the instant gold-type out of the outside by using two cream and freight cars.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 7 evidence, Eul's 1 through 7 evidence (including each number in case of additional evidence) or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The gist of the claim was that the Plaintiff, who operates the “B”, was faced with the insolvency situation, received the instant gold punishment and properly occupied it.

The Defendant also recognized the Plaintiff’s possession and ordered the manufacture of the product using the gold-type of this case.

Nevertheless, on September 2, 2015, the representative director D and executive officers and employees of the defendant violated the plaintiff's factory without permission, thereby getting off the punishment of this case.

The gold penalty of this case is not owned by the defendant, but owned by F, and the defendant is against the plaintiff.