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

A. On February 8, 2012, the registration of the instant astronomical air was cancelled ex officio on the ground of the failure to conduct inspections under Article 6(1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act, on December 7, 2015, on the ground that D and the instant astronomical air (hereinafter “the instant astronomical air”) owned by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. On November 20, 2008, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the non-party company on the lease of the instant tent, and possessed the instant tent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On February 8, 2012, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) purchased the instant astronomical air from Nonparty Company; and (b) leased it to Nonparty Company for rent of KRW 5.5 million up to February 7, 2014.

However, the Defendant commenced illegal possession of the instant astronomical air, thereby incurring damages to the Plaintiff, the owner, for the said twenty-four-month period.

Although the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 100 million among the damages above, it did not pay the remainder of KRW 65 million, the Defendant sought damages of KRW 65 million to the Defendant.

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. A. Around 2016, F, the representative director of the Plaintiff’s summary of the defense by the Defendant, filed a complaint against the Defendant on charges of obstructing another’s exercise of rights, etc., and the Defendant, on the premise that the instant case would soon end, entered into an agreement to bring a civil or criminal objection with the Plaintiff, paid KRW 35 million, and completed the registration of ownership in the name of the Defendant in relation to the instant astronomical air.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is dismissed because it is in violation of the Collegiate Agreement.

B. According to the written evidence Nos. 10 through 15 of the judgment of the Plaintiff’s representative director, F, around 2016, prevents the Defendant from exercising one’s right in relation to the instant astronomical air and Gcheon air.