1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached list.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of down payment and the first intermediate payment against the Defendant, and received a favorable judgment on May 14, 2015 (Seoul District Court 2014Gahap595), but the Defendant did not pay it, and the Plaintiff filed an application for seizure and compulsory auction of the movable property listed in the attached list of factory buildings in the 2847-6 (hereinafter “each of the instant movable property”).

(No. 2016No. 849). (b) Magju District Court

On December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff received a successful bid of KRW 363,250,000 for each of the instant movables in the said corporeal movables auction case, and paid the proceeds by offsetting the Plaintiff’s existing claims against the Defendant.

C. The Defendant currently manufactures products while occupying each of the instant movables.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

2. According to the facts of the determination on the request for extradition, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant movables to the Plaintiff, the owner of each of the instant movables.

3. The Plaintiff’s judgment on each of the instant claims is the conjunctive claim seeking payment equivalent to the value of each of the instant movable in cases where the obligation to deliver the instant movable is impossible. However, the obligee’s claim for reimbursement in addition to the compensatory damages, where the subject claim is filed by combining the subject claim in addition to the original claim for payment, on the premise that the right to claim for reimbursement is in existence before the judgment becomes final and conclusive, or where the subject claim becomes impossible after the final and conclusive judgment becomes final and conclusive, the consolidation between the two claims shall be deemed to belong to the simple consolidation between the current claim for payment and the future claim for payment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Da450, Jul. 22, 1975; 2005Da39013, Jan. 27, 2006). In addition, such a claim was joined as a preliminary one for the original claim for benefit.