1. The Defendants shall deliver to the Plaintiff each movable property listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

1. The following facts are acknowledged among the Plaintiff and the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), in full view of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1-2 and 6-2, and among the Plaintiff and the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), it is deemed that the Defendant B led to confession pursuant to Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. On May 22, 2012, D: (a) borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff; and (b) set up a security interest on five sexual criminal withdrawal machines purchased with the said money to secure the said loan obligation (the location: the Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City E); and (c) drafted a notarial deed of a loan for consumption of money by means of security for this purpose.

B. D is called as “A” a personal entrepreneur E in Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 1, 2012.

In the trade name of "Plastic withdrawal factory", the Plastic withdrawal factory was established, and the business registration was made on July 18, 2012.

C. D, on January 7, 2015, borrowed KRW 60 million from the Plaintiff, and in order to secure a total of KRW 160 million loan obligation, D’s attached list machinery purchased with the said money below “the instant machinery” is deemed to be “the instant machinery”.

) The security interest was created in the instant machines (No. 2 and No. 3 among the instant machines).

is part of the five criminal procedure period in subsection (5).

d) The instant machinery is Kimpo-si F (hereinafter referred to as "G G-si factory") in Kimpo-si.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendants are jointly occupying and jointly owning the machinery of this case to the Plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the return of the object based on ownership, inasmuch as the obligee has external ownership in determining the cause of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da45943, Dec. 24, 2004; 2004Da45943, Dec. 24, 2004).

3. Defendant C’s bona fide acquisition defense as to Defendant C’s defense is the Defendant.