1. The Defendants:

A. Of the corporeal movables listed in Section 2 of Attached Table 1, the Plaintiff is indicated in Attached Table 2.

The main lawsuit and the lawsuit of independent party intervention shall be considered together.

The Intervenor asserts that the Intervenor has the right to collateral security for all the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in possession of the Defendants, and sought a delivery thereof against the Defendants. The Plaintiff asserts that the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) among the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet No. 1 List No. 2 (hereinafter “instant freezing”) were supplied by the Plaintiff pursuant to the freezing installation contract between the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “instant installation contract”) and the Defendant Company, and that the Plaintiff has the obligation to deliver them to the Plaintiff, as long as the construction payment was not paid in full pursuant to the agreement on the ownership reservation schedule stipulated in the above contract.

In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 7 and Byung evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a provisional number) as a whole, it cannot be deemed that the corporeal movables in the instant case are subject to separate transactions without damaging the freezing apparatus, and that they are consistent with the freezing season in the instant case because their separate expenses are almost little (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da39251, Jan. 26, 199). Since the ownership is deemed reserved against the plaintiff pursuant to Articles 10(1) and 12(2) of the Establishment Agreement, the defendants are ultimately obligated to deliver the remaining corporeal movables in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto to the plaintiff during the instant freezing period, except that, to the plaintiff.

(In the case of Defendant B, by public notice, and in the case of Defendant C, by confession). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its merit, and the Intervenor’s claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed on the grounds of its merit, but the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.