1. Defendant B shall deliver to the Plaintiff movable property listed in the separate sheet.

2. Defendant C, D, and E.

On March 8, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) concluded a security agreement on the movable property indicated in the separate sheet owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant movable property”) in order to secure a loan claim of KRW 226,909,000, which the Plaintiff possessed against Defendant C.

Defendant C transferred the instant movable property to the Plaintiff by means of an occupation revision, and continued possession and use.

On November 10, 2011, Defendant D acquired all assets, such as Defendant C’s shares, management rights, and business rights, in total, KRW 7.5 billion, and around that time, Defendant C’s representative director was appointed.

Defendant E purchased on September 2, 2016, 5, 6, and 8 of the F building in common city, through which the movable property of this case is kept, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31, 2016, and Defendant A limited liability company leased the above building and operated the film theater, and the movable property of this case is occupied by Defendant B while operating the film theater.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a branch number), the purport of the entire pleadings, and each claim filed against defendant limited company B and E, the plaintiff acquired ownership by transfer of the movable property of this case on or around March 8, 2010. Thus, the defendant limited liability company, the possessor of the movable property of this case, has the duty to deliver the movable property of this case to the plaintiff, the owner of the movable property of this case, and the defendant Eul, the owner of the building where the movable property of this case is kept, shall not interfere with the transfer by the defendant limited liability company of the movable property of this case to the plaintiff as the owner of the movable property of this case.

In conclusion, the judgment by public notice of each of the claims against Defendant C and D (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) is based on the conclusion of the judgment, and all of the claims against the Defendants are acceptable.