1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim is that the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “C”) is owned by the Plaintiff that was sold by the Plaintiff, and is in alliance with the Plaintiff in the past.

The defendant, at the same time, occupies the hedged defendant without permission.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the return of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff purchased the return dog of this case from “D”, the seller of the return dog on February 16, 2019, at the price of KRW 600,000.

However, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments in each statement or image of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same applies), the following facts were revealed: (i) the time when the plaintiff, at the time of the purchase of the return dog of this case with the defendant and men and women, was to teach the plaintiff to the relationship between the defendant and men and women; (ii) although the plaintiff independently borne the sale cost, the decision on the sale of the dog itself, the selection of the dog, and other procedures, etc. were to proceed jointly with the defendant; (ii) while the plaintiff, at the time, was living together with his father and children, he had been living together with his father and children, and the defendant was relatively easy for the defendant to look at the return dog; (iii) therefore, the return dog of this case was mainly living at the defendant's office; and (iv) the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the protection and management of the return dog of this case from the defendant's side during the period of the purchase of necessary goods with the defendant; and (v) the above fact that the return dog of this case was not sufficient to be recognized by the defendant Gap.

The reason why the return of this case, the status of protection and management, the relationship between the original and the defendant, as shown in the above facts of recognition, and the attitude during that period.