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

According to the sales contract (No. 6) on the instant movable property submitted by the Plaintiff, the parties to the sales contract on five engines, including the instant movable property, are not only the Plaintiff, but also the E Co., Ltd and E Co., Ltd., a separate company.). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone leads to the language and text of the said contract, and it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff as the parties to the contract, not the said company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the Plaintiff acquired possession of the instant movable property, it is alleged that the Plaintiff acquired possession of the instant movable property via D or at least through D, but it is recognized that the instant movable property was in the factory of C in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 2 and No. 10, and that the Plaintiff was not D but C et al., and that the Plaintiff was in possession of the instant movable property. Thus, it is presumed that the instant movable property was under the possession of C et al., and that the said company and D were separate legal entities, and thus, they were the actual operators of C et al., and were actually involved in the acquisition of the instant movable property.

Even if there are no special circumstances, it cannot be the same as D's possession, barring special circumstances.

I would like to say.

In addition, we accept the plaintiff's assertion concerning D's acquisition of possession.

Even if the meaning of the investment agreement between the Plaintiff and D is unclear, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff and D shared the instant movable property, and D alone has the right to dispose of the instant movable property, and the Plaintiff has D.