1. The Defendants jointly deliver to the Plaintiff the movable property listed in the separate sheet.

2. Litigation costs are assessed against the Defendants.

The fact that the Plaintiff owned movable property listed in the separate sheet, which is an industrial machine (hereinafter “instant movable property”) and the Defendants possessed the instant movable property is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and the Defendant C is deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the duty to deliver the instant movable property to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant Company’s assertion of simultaneous performance defense regarding the Defendant Company’s assertion that the Defendant Company leased part of the steel plant D (hereinafter “instant factory”) where the instant movable property is located to the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant Company’s obligation to deliver the instant movable property is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the Plaintiff’s obligation to repay rent and cost due to the said lease, the delivery of the instant movable property may be refused until the said obligation is repaid.

Judgment

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3, 11, 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the defendant company leased the factory of this case to the plaintiff on April 25, 2016 by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, KRW 550,000 per month, KRW 550,000 per month, and period of lease from May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2018. The fact that the plaintiff purchased the movable property of this case from E Co., Ltd. and installed it in the factory of this case is recognized around that time.

However, the above facts and the aforementioned evidence alone are insufficient to recognize the relationship of consideration or performance between the duty to deliver the movable property of this case and the duty to reimburse the above rent and the duty to reimburse the expenses for the factory of this case, and there is no other evidence to support this.

Therefore, the above argument of the defendant company is without merit.

The defendant company asserted the right of retention defense has a claim for rent under the above lease against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant company has the right to possess the movables of this case based on civil or commercial lien.

Judgment on the commercial lien argument.