1. The Defendants jointly and severally deliver each movable set forth in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a facility lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) on the premise that each of the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movable property”) as leased property and that the Plaintiff would lend the movable property to Defendant A and receive lease fees, etc. from Defendant A (hereinafter “instant movable property”). Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant A’s obligation under the instant lease agreement.

B. Meanwhile, in the instant lease agreement, ownership of the leased property belongs to the Plaintiff (Article 13 of the instant lease agreement, Article 6 of the Special Agreement), and in the event that Defendant A filed an application for rehabilitation procedures under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the Plaintiff may terminate the instant lease agreement without any notice or peremptory notice to the Defendant A (Article 22 of the instant lease agreement). In the event that the instant lease agreement is terminated, Defendant A shall promptly return the instant movable property to the Plaintiff (Article 21 of the instant lease agreement).

C. However, on September 16, 2015, Defendant A filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Daegu District Court 2015 Ma133, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement, and on September 23, 2015, Defendant A sent notification of termination of the lease agreement and notification of the return of goods to return the instant movable property by content-certified mail to Defendant A. The said notification reached Defendant A on September 24, 2015.

In the above rehabilitation case of Defendant A, the above court decided to commence the rehabilitation procedures on October 23, 2015, but decided to discontinue the rehabilitation procedures on June 28, 2016, and the abolition decision was finalized on July 13, 2016.

E. The instant movable property is currently kept in custody of Defendant A’s place of business in South-gu, South-gu, territorial waters.

[Reasons for Recognition] : Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Evidence No. 3-1, 2, and Evidence No. 5 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease contract of this case to Defendant A.