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

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each movable property listed in the separate sheet of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant machine”), and the Defendant occupies the instant machine without any justifiable right.

Even if the Defendant purchased the instant machinery from the Plaintiff’s agent B.

Even if B was delegated with the authority to sell the instant machinery at KRW 150 million by the Plaintiff, and thus, the act of selling the instant machinery on behalf of the Plaintiff constitutes an act of acting as an agent in excess of the authority to sell it at KRW 75 million on behalf of the Plaintiff, and in light of the amount of the sales price, the fact that the Defendant knew or could have known that he did not have the authority to sell the instant machinery at KRW 75 million, and thus, the Defendant did not lawfully acquire the ownership of the instant machinery.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff, and pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 10 million per month from February 1, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of the instant machinery from February 1, 2013, which is unjust enrichment from possession and use of the instant machinery.

B. The Defendant is the owner who duly purchased the instant machinery from the Plaintiff’s agent or commission agent B.

2. According to Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6-12, Eul evidence Nos. 8, and Eul's testimony, the defendant purchased the machinery of this case from Eul delegated with the power to sell the machinery of this case to the plaintiff on Nov. 1, 2012 and delegated the plaintiff on Nov. 6, 2012 with the authority to sell them to KRW 75 million (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 25 million on Nov. 6, 2012; KRW 10 million on Nov. 10, 2012; KRW 5 million on Dec. 12, 2012; KRW 7.5 million on Dec. 26, 2012; KRW 5 million on Dec. 28, 2012; and KRW 300,000,000,000 won on Feb. 13, 2013