1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 26,900,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 21, 2018 to October 1, 2019; and (b).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale of steel materials, manufacturing and wholesale of non-metallic metals, and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing of automated machinery, trade of automated machinery, trade of plant machinery, etc.

B. On September 20, 201, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant for the supply of 20 tons of steel fibers in the purchase form prior to the due order, and supplied 20 tons of steel fibers to the Defendant.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant negotiated on the additional supply of 100 tons of steel fibers, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a negotiation on the additional supply of concrete and steel fibers to the Defendant, which is a strong fiber supply device combining concrete and steel fiber Feder, hereinafter “the instant movable property”).

(D) On September 30, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to continue the contract for the supply of steel. D. The Plaintiff and the Defendant transferred the instant movable property to the Defendant on September 30, 201. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to additionally supply the Defendant the amount of KRW 1,000 tons of steel. Accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied KRW 700 tons of steel fiber by December 10, 2012, but the supply price increase in steel and the unit price for the supply between the Plaintiff and the Defendant could not supply the remainder of steel to the Defendant due to the increase in the supply price of steel and the unit price for the supply between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. The said contract was terminated at the time between the said parties. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, subparagraphs 1 through 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff lent the instant movable property to the Defendant without compensation during the period in which the contract for the supply of steel continues, and as such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant movable property to the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, given that the Defendant’s obligation to return the instant movable was impossible to perform on April 7, 2017, the Defendant ultimately committed the instant movable property to the Plaintiff.