The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The auction case pertaining to the class 7 kinds of machinery and apparatus in the factory (hereinafter “instant auction movable property”) was conducted during the first half of 2018, as shown in the attached auction list with D factories located in Gyeonggi-gun Group C and the attached auction list owned by the Plaintiff.

B. In the above auction case, D factories were awarded to a third party around February 2018, and the instant auction property was awarded to Nonparty E on May 24, 2018.

C. E transferred the instant movable property to Nonparty F, and F again transferred the movable property to Defendant B (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”).

Defendant B removed the instant movable property from the auction around the end of May 2018.

E. On November 2018, the Gyeonggi-do Police Station completed internal investigation on the following: “The Defendant stolen machines and apparatus in a factory other than the instant auction movable.”

F. Defendant B is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of used machines with the trade name of “G” and is between the buyer and the husband and wife H.

(hereinafter “Defendant B” and Appointed H together with the Defendant’s son. 【Grounds for Recognition”), the fact that there is no dispute, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including the virtual number), and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim brought about the kinds of machinery and apparatus in the factory as shown in the attached Form No. 13 (hereinafter “movables other than the auction of this case”) separately after the instant movable properties were seized in the auction of corporeal movables.

On June 2018, the Plaintiff, while taking only the Defendants on the instant auction property, notified that the movable property other than the instant auction property would be left behind and displayed by machinery. The Defendants took out all of the movable property other than the instant auction property.

The Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 67,500,000 at the market price of movable property other than the instant auction as damages for the tort.

3. Determination and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

If so,