1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Basic Facts

On September 10, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a contract to lease equipment to Nonparty E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) and F (S) of Washington with the trade name “D”, and to lease equipment to receive USD 30,000 on a monthly rent for the purpose of receiving USD 30,00.

The plaintiff loaded the first equipment on November 4, 2009 and sent it to E according to the above contract.

E received from the CIVIL TH PTE. LTD. (hereinafter “CIVT”) construction from the said site, and performed construction works as primary equipment on the said site by re-subcontracting (the instant construction site) the construction works to excavate Maarina Co., Ltd. H (hereinafter “instant construction site”) and the I Tools Tech excavation work (the original client’s Washington LTA, the contractor’s construction company, the subcontractor’s sub-contractor).

For this purpose, Nonparty J, an employee of the Plaintiff, left the Republic of Korea on December 21, 2009 and managed the above equipment from January 201, 201 at the construction site of this case (management of the key of equipment, replacement of parts, replacement of parts, etc.).

On November 5, 2009, Nonparty K, the representative director of the Defendant, was a shareholder of 1 November 2009, and established “L (hereinafter “L”) as a local company of Singapore.”

L at the time, the non-party Ma, who is a director of Singapore, was employed as a local director of Washington, and M was concurrently engaged in the duties of E and L, and at least until April 2010, was employed as a local director of L.

K sent the acquisition proposal to E on December 10, 2009 through the introduction of M, and on December 23, 2009, K and M entered into a contract for acquiring their E shares from G for acquisition.

On the other hand, on January 19, 2010, the Plaintiff planned to enter the construction site of this case along with the primary equipment, and the Defendant, an export agent, and an exporter, loaded the secondary equipment in a manner of exporting it to L (the equipment is currently registered as owned at Washington) and the said equipment around February 2010.