1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. D and E are married couple, and D operate the “G” of the Elderly Medical Care Center for the Aged located in Gyeonggi-gu F, and E operates the Plaintiff Foundation located in H adjacent to the above “G.”

B. Around December 24, 2015, D sold to the Defendants all of the building, “G”, “G”, and “G” facilities and operating rights, for KRW 3 billion.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer as to one-half shares of each of the above land and buildings around February 17, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination were kept in custody of the instant movable property owned by the Plaintiff in the fourth container boxes (ware) located behind the building site. However, the Defendants, after completing the registration of ownership transfer for the said land and building, had replaced the number height of the said warehouse and occupied the instant movable property. As such, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant movable property to the Plaintiff. If the execution of delivery is impossible, they are obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 56,132,230, the market value of the instant movable property.

The testimony by the witness J alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the movable property of this case was stored in the above four warehouse around February 17, 2016 (when the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land and building above), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the goods were stored in the warehouse of the above four units, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the said goods were owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence No. 5-1, the Defendant’s content certificate sent to the Plaintiff around April 1, 2016 (appraisal as KRW 1.76 million) is conducted on the G building (appraisal as of February 1, 2016).