2. It is confirmed that the items listed in the attached list No. 2 are owned by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

3. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 2’s counterclaim claim and Defendant 1’s appeal are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising from Defendant 1’s appeal is assessed against each of the following subparagraphs: (a) between Defendant 1, Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant 2; and (b) between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

Defendant 2 (Plaintiff Counterclaim; hereinafter Defendant 2) confirmed that the items listed in the attached Table 2 are owned by the Plaintiff. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants, and Defendant 2, as a counterclaim claim, delivers to Defendant 2 the items listed in the attached Table 2 to the Plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the plaintiff and the declaration of provisional execution are sought respectively.

First of all, we examine the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1. There is no dispute between the parties that the above entry in the list No. 1 and the establishment of a mortgage registration under the defendant 1 were completed. In full view of the testimony of the non-party 2 of the court below as well as the fact-finding results and arguments about the YY branch at the court below, the plaintiff's act of using the above information No. 1,378,10, 2,506, 936, and the plaintiff's own funds of 690,000, 36 tons constructed under the above list No. 4,575,046, and 600, and 36 tons of the above establishment of a mortgage registration under the Act on the Management and Operation of Funds of the plaintiff and the establishment of a mortgage registration for the purpose of using the above 1,000, 197, the plaintiff's act of using the above information cannot be deemed as part of the construction and management of the plaintiff's property under the name of Daejeon District Court No. 1, as part of the above.

Then, even if the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 was examined, Gap evidence 3-2 through 19-1 to 4-3, Eul evidence 3-4 and 7, and Gap evidence 5-1, which can be established by the testimony of the non-party 3 at the court below level, as to the non-party 2's request against the defendant 2, the plaintiff's above-mentioned vessel was constructed on behalf of the non-party 1, the plaintiff's 2, 1, 4, and 5's testimony and oral argument that the non-party 2's above-mentioned vessel's above delivery of subsidy and other funds and the purchase of shipbuilding materials and the application for the completion of the above vessel's construction, etc. The plaintiff's above vessel's above stated items were not constructed on behalf of the non-party 1, who were his children, and the defendant's above 1 and the non-party 2's above stated items were purchased on behalf of the non-party 1 to the above defendant 2's above vessel's above 10-year.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

The items in the attached list No. 2 are the Plaintiff’s ownership. The fact that the items were loaded on the instant ship owned by the Plaintiff and possessed by the Plaintiff, and the above lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant should be seen as a security for transfer to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 400,000 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. As seen above, Defendant 2 may seek delivery of the items in the attached list No. 2 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation by the Plaintiff, the obligor, and seek delivery of the items in the attached list No. 2 on the basis of the ownership on the premise that the items are one’s own property. However, Defendant 2’s counterclaim claim cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since all of the plaintiff's principal claim is reasonable, and the counterclaim by defendant 2 is without merit, the part against defendant 1 among the plaintiff's principal claim in the original judgment is just, and since the part against defendant 2 among the plaintiff's principal claim in the original judgment, which differs from the original judgment, and the part against the defendant 2 among the plaintiff's principal claim in the original lawsuit, which differs from the original judgment, is unfair, the unfair part is revoked, and the plaintiff's appeal as to this part is reasonable, and therefore, the plaintiff's appeal as to the above party's part is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the part arising from the defendant 1's appeal as to the above party's part is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, the part arising from the defendant 2's appeal as to

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)