1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff, a company engaged in a general waste disposal business, entered into a contract for equipment lease with the Defendant, a company engaged in manufacturing, selling, etc. recyclable materials, and delivered each of the instant machinery to the Defendant on the same day. On the same day, the Plaintiff may terminate the said lease contract with the Defendant on the same day. On the other hand, the Defendant may terminate the said lease contract with a duplicate delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, on the one hand, 1, 24 months, 1, 1, 24 months, 24 months, 2 months, 5 million won per month, 5 million won per month after the conclusion of the lease contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant machinery to the Plaintiff, and to pay 15 million won per month from January 23, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of each of the instant machinery in return for unjust enrichment on the 23th day of each month.

B. Each of the documents of this case cannot be used as evidence, and each of the documents of this case cannot be used as evidence, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the document of this case is a document duly formed by the evidence of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (the equipment lease contract, equipment (advanced) lease contract, and equipment (hereinafter “each of the documents of this case”). Nos. 2-1 and 2-2 are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the above lease contract was concluded, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers), the representative director C of the plaintiff took over the defendant on January 7, 2017, changed the defendant's representative director into D on January 16, 2017, and then, on April 25, 2017, the plaintiff operated the defendant for about three months, including the transfer of each of the instant machinery owned by the plaintiff to the defendant's factory.