유체동산인도
1. All appeals filed against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “16 billion won” of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as “1.6 billion won” of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance and, in addition, as well as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
However, with regard to the defendants' arguments, the following judgments shall be added.
2. Additional determination
A. On August 16, 2013, Plaintiff B’s assertion as to the Defendants related to the main claim 1) The rights and obligations under the contract for the production of a Maw-con machine between the head of the Dongyang-gu and the head of the Dongyang-gu (hereinafter “this case’s agreement”).
A) Around the time of transfer, the Plaintiffs received KRW 636 million out of 2.12 billion of the price of the Masphering machine from the Masphering machine. At the time, the manufacturing process rate of the Masphering machine was 5 to 6.6%. Meanwhile, due to the acquisition of the Masphering machine contract, the actual price of each of the instant machinery was 50 million to 100 million. The Defendant Company received KRW 70% of the remainder of the manufacturing process of the Masphering machine from the Masphering machine and received KRW 94 to 95% of the price of the Masphering machine and the above Masphering machine and received KRW 70% of the price of the Masphering machine and equipment from the Masphering machine and thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs were transferred without compensation to the Defendants in light of the first instance court judgment, namely, the Plaintiff Company’s remaining 90% of the price of the Map.3138.
However, in the premise of the Defendants, the oral agreement between the Plaintiffs and Defendant C to reverse the instant acquisition agreement at the end of June, 2013 is that.