1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff (1) purchased KRW 17 million from the Defendant’s movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant machine”). The Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff had ownership of the instant machine, and the instant machine is handed over to the Plaintiff upon the Defendant’s request for delivery. The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the content of “the instant contract” (hereinafter “the instant contract”). From around that time to July 1, 2016, the Defendant paid the purchase price of KRW 17 million to the Defendant.

(2) On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to deliver the instant machinery, and filed the instant lawsuit demanding the delivery of the instant machinery on July 28, 2016. The duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff according to the terms of the instant sales contract, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion was concluded as part of a partnership agreement for “the promotion of the manufacture and sale of H products and research and development projects developed by the Defendant,” which was concluded between the Defendant and D, E, F, and G, and the instant sales agreement became null and void due to the Plaintiff’s fault or termination by agreement between the parties. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim under the instant sales agreement is unreasonable.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff is a joint business entity under the above business agreement rather than an independent right entity. Therefore, in the event that the business relationship terminates, the Plaintiff cannot independently claim the ownership of the machinery of this case to the Defendant without settling a separate business relationship.

(b) Determination Nos. 1, 2, and 1.