1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached list.

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

3...

1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 5-2:

On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between B (user) and B (hereinafter “the instant movable”), 36 months of lease period, 1,169,263 won per annum 25% per annum, and delivered the instant movable to B (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). The main contents of the instant lease agreement are as follows.

Article 10 (Ownership of Things) The defendant is limited to the right to use the article during the lease period, and in any case, the ownership and other rights to the article shall not be assigned to the defendant.

Article 20 (Termination of Contracts) When the obligations under this Agreement or any other contract concluded with the Plaintiff are not met at the maturity date, or when the provisions concerning important prohibited acts under the contract are violated, the Plaintiff may terminate the contract.

Article 21 (Measures at the Time of Occurrence of Grounds for Termination of Contract) In the event of the occurrence of grounds for termination of the contract, the plaintiff may take measures, such as the claim for the return of the goods and the disposition thereof, regardless

B. From June 2016, B failed to perform the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant lease agreement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on December 29, 2016, and accordingly, the lease fee, etc. that B shall pay to the Plaintiff as of February 6, 2017 reaches KRW 36,570,933 in total.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant currently occupies the instant movable property.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the fact that the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the instant movable property was recognized, the Defendant did not assert and prove that he/she has the right to possess the instant movable property, so long as he/she did not deliver the instant movable property to the Plaintiff as its owner.