1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Judgment of the court of first instance No. 1.B.

subsection. (3).

1. The reasons for this court’s explanation are as follows, except for the dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the addition of the judgment of the defendant’s new argument, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

(However, the part of the plaintiff's action for a claim to be withdrawn by this court is excluded). Part 1-3 of Part 5 (A child has been engaged in the business of processing, as well as parts.

(A) “A” (AA) operated a parts processing business similar to D’s trade name by transferring half of the leased factories by B on May 2015, and concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff and used machinery, such as stampping center, etc.

) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant machinery was used under the lease of B at the time when the Defendant entered into a sales contract with B as to the instant machinery, “No evidence to acknowledge the receipt thereof.” Moreover, it appears that the instant machinery was used under the lease of B at the time of concluding the sales contract with B.

2. Judgment on the defendant's new argument

A. 1) As to the validity of the lease agreement on the instant machinery, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant acquired the instant machinery from the Plaintiff, and as long as the lease agreement on the instant machinery concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was effective, the Defendant may possess and use the instant machinery, and as long as the Plaintiff acquired the lease agreement on the instant machinery, the Plaintiff may not file a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant. 2) Since the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant machinery, claims the return of the instant machinery against the Defendant who possessed the instant machinery, who is possessing the instant machinery, as the owner of the instant machinery, filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant. Accordingly, according to the health unit, the Plaintiff’s existence of possession right holder who can claim against the Plaintiff as to the instant machinery, and according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the lease agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.