1. All appeals filed by Defendant B and C are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by Defendant B and C.

purport, purport, and.

1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants B and C (hereinafter “the Defendants in this case”) as to the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance are deemed legitimate.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment" as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on the instant case is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants acquired ownership by the method of bona fide acquisition of each of the instant machines.

Where a person who acquired movable property in good faith, peace, and public performance had possession of it without negligence, even if the transferor is not a legitimate owner, he/she shall immediately acquire the ownership of the movable property (Article 249 of the Civil Act); however, considering the overall purport of pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 4 through 7, and 2, Defendant A entered into each of the instant construction contracts with Defendant B on June 1, 2015, with the term of lease for the building E located in Macheon-si owned by the Defendant B from June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2017; the Plaintiff and Defendant A established a lease agreement with the name of F on July 13, 2015, and established each of the instant construction contracts with the Plaintiff No. 1, 2015 to 30,000,000, respectively, and the Plaintiff and Defendant A established each of the instant construction contracts with the Plaintiff No. 5, 2016.