1. At the request of the plaintiff that has been changed in exchange at the trial, the defendant shall be listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. From 202 to 2004, the Plaintiff purchased the machinery and equipment listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant machinery and equipment”) from the limited partnership, etc. engineering, from June 30, 2006 to C (D company) and installed a factory building (hereinafter “instant factory building”) located on the ground located on the land of 3,951 square meters of land for E, 3,951 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time when the Defendant owned each of the machinery and equipment listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant machinery and equipment”) in the separate sheet No. 1, 5, and 9 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) from the limited partnership company, and the purport of each entry and all pleadings is recognized.

B. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the machinery and equipment of the instant case were owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant shall not interfere with the Plaintiff’s removal of the machinery and equipment of the instant case Nos. 1 and 2, and as long as the Defendant, as the owner of the instant land and factory building where the first and second machinery and equipment of the instant case were installed, disputing the Plaintiff’s ownership of the machinery and equipment of the instant case Nos. 1 and 2, it is necessary

(1) The Defendant asserted that the confession of the instant case was revoked on January 17, 2017 through a preparatory document dated August 26, 2016, when the Defendant led to the confession that the instant facilities and equipment were owned by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant was found to have reached the trial on January 17, 2017. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Defendant’s revocation of confession is invalid).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the assertion of conformity, the Defendant’s judgment 1 and 2 machinery and equipment of this case are consistent with the building of the factory of this case, or some of the machinery and equipment of this case were installed in the building of the factory of this case, to other parts owned by the Defendant, which were installed in the building of the factory of this case.