1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim for addition, reduction, and exchange change in the trial.

1. cite the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act of basic facts;

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 1, 2004, the part concerning the delivery of movable property and the part concerning the claim ① The Plaintiff was subcontracted with the excavation of the ground and the installation of soil strawing construction from the comprehensive construction of the same subparagraph to April 2005 and carried out the construction of additional excavation by up to 25 meters underground. On September 5, 2004 and September 22, 2004, the Plaintiff leased the movable property including each movable property listed in the attached corporeal movables list from G and I operating H and I operating the F, and installed in the Changwon-si B site.

② Although the Plaintiff was transferred by G and I around November 2016 and May 2017 from G and I, the Defendants currently occupy each of the said movables at the open space located in the city of Changwon.

③ Therefore, in order to preserve the Plaintiff’s right to claim delivery based on the Plaintiff’s ownership around the first place, the Plaintiff sought joint delivery of each of the above movables in subrogation of lessor G and I in order to preserve the Plaintiff’s right to lease under each of the above lease agreements as of September 5, 2004 and September 22, 2004. In preparation for the case where the execution of delivery of each of the above movables is impossible, the Plaintiff sought joint payment of KRW 682,430,504 equivalent to the price of each of the above movables.

B. As the Defendants occupied and used damages related to the use of and benefit from movable property or the claim for return of unjust enrichment as stated in the separate list of movables without permission, the Defendants acquired profit equivalent to the rent of each of the above movables, while the Defendants, G, I, and the Plaintiff suffered considerable damage. The Plaintiff was jointly transferred the damage claim and the claim for return of unjust enrichment related to each of the above movables from G and I. As such, the Defendants jointly owned the Plaintiff from March 24, 2012, which was the starting point of possession of each of the above movables, to the date when the delivery of each of the above movables was completed or at the trial.