1. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff:

(a) deliver movable property listed in the separate sheet;

(b) An annexed list from November 6, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “lease agreement of this case”) with the observer (S/N: 2032; hereinafter “the printing machine of this case”) as the lease deposit amount of KRW 66 million, the lease fee of KRW 8,317,800, and the lease period of KRW 36 months.

B. The instant lease agreement was terminated on November 6, 2013 due to the delinquency in payment of the leasing fee of Sung ELD.

C. The Defendants possessed and used the instant printing machine prior to November 6, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on November 6, 2013 due to the late payment of the lease fee of Sung ELD.

As such, the Defendants, as joint possessors of the instant printing machine, are obligated to deliver the instant printing machine to each Plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment in proportion to KRW 8,317,80 per month from November 6, 2013 when the instant leasing contract was terminated until the delivery of the instant printing machine.

B. The Defendants asserted that the printing machine of this case was acquired in the course of movable auction from March 2012 to Busan District Court 2012No. 1269. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the printing machine of this case was acquired in the above auction procedure. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(D) The printing machines acquired at the above auction procedure are different from S/N 2F4 printing machines of this case from S/N. 3. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.