1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each movable property listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the cause of the claim is the owner of each of the movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant movables”), and the fact that the Defendant currently occupies the instant movables is either disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the video of the evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 2, as a whole. 2.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant movable to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant movable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's right of retention defense

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the termination of the lease agreement with the time of delivery of the building which is the object of the lease. Thus, the plaintiff has the right to retain the movable property of this case from the time of receiving the repayment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the plaintiff.

B. On the other hand, the defendant's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the plaintiff as above does not arise from the movable property itself, and it is difficult to view that the right to claim the return of this case's movable property based on the plaintiff's ownership is a claim arising from the same legal relation or factual relation as that of the right to claim the return of this case's movable property based on the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, it is difficult to recognize the relation between the object

C. Therefore, the defendant's right of retention defense cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.