1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in No. 5 of the attached Table 1.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. On May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 200 million to C on the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion; (b) agreed to receive each movable listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached to C owned (hereinafter “instant movable”) as collateral for the purpose of securing the said loan claim; and (c) was handed over the instant movable by means of possession revision.

Defendant Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is also the wife of C at the time of incorporation of the Defendant Company F, Inc., at the time of incorporation into Scheon-si D (Road name address is referred to as “Macheon-si E”) around December 2013.

C Based on the trade name, “F” like the name of the corporation, operated a private business entity engaged in the manufacturing business of glass in Scheon City I (hereinafter referred to as “I place of business”), and established F Company F, a corporation whose main place of business is Macheon City D (hereinafter referred to as “D place of business”), and newly built a factory at D place of business, and completed a written statement to the effect that G, who ordered the construction work and performed the construction work, waives all rights to the land and the factory building. G sold the above land and the factory building to the Defendant company, and recovered part of the construction price as the price.

It is a company that purchases land and above-ground factory buildings from F Co., Ltd. and operates the same business. The movable property of this case is currently established and used in the above factory.

Even if the Defendant, without any cause, conspired with C and transferred the possession of the instant movable without any cause, or even if the Defendant purchased the instant movable from F, it was made after the Plaintiff completed the attachment execution of the instant movable based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed on the said loan claim against C, and thus, it is not possible to acquire the ownership of the said movable since it was already purchased from C who had lost the capacity to dispose of the said movable through F.

Therefore, the defendant is the owner.