2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3.

A. On February 27, 2013, a cooperative concluded a mortgage contract with the Plaintiff (title prior to the change: D), and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage with respect to the buildings with the maximum debt amount of 3,640,000,000 won on the E-Gun in Ulsan-do, Ulsan-do, which was owned by the Plaintiff on the same day, and 1,868 square meters on the F, 1,868 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”), and the tourist hotel with the 7th above ground level on each of the above land (if there is no 4th floor at the site of the building, and no 8th floor on the ground level), on each of the above land (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).

(B) The right to collateral security following the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage of this case").

C. On June 29, 2016, the voluntary auction of the instant building and land (hereinafter “instant auction”) was commenced through G in this court on the application of the C Union. At the said auction procedure, the Defendant (formerly named: H Co., Ltd.) received the decision to permit sale of the instant land and building on May 8, 2017, and acquired the ownership on June 2, 2017.

C. Around August 2017, the Defendant began to run hotel business in the above building upon delivery of the instant land and building from the Plaintiff. From around that time, the Defendant occupied the movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant movable property”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7 and Eul evidence 2 (including each number, if any), and the purpose of the whole pleadings, as a result of on-site verification by a commissioned judge

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s movable property was not included in the subject matter of the auction of this case as it was originally owned by the Plaintiff, and it was not an accessory or accessory to the real property acquired by the Defendant through the auction of this case, and its ownership still remains to the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not return the above goods to the plaintiff and is now in his hotel business.