The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operated a machinery manufacturer, such as cutting and sculling machines, in the “D” located in the I in the I followingsan City, and was employed by the Defendant from November 2008 to take charge of manufacturing machinery, such as cutting and sculling machines, at the F plant located in the JJ in the I followingsan-si, the Defendant operated.

B. Around March 2009, the Defendant moved the existing factory to E in the following cities: (a) around that time, the Plaintiff left the “D” factory, and the Plaintiff needed to keep the eros and cutting machines in the table Nos. 2 and 3 of the attached Table Nos. 1 of the Plaintiff’s attached hereto, which were manufactured separately by the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was dissipating the “D” factory; and (b) obtained the Defendant’s consent, and transported the said machinery to the above E-factory.

Then, the Plaintiff carried out the completion work of the eroding machines as stated in the above Paragraph 1 at Defendant Factory, and carried out the production work of cutting machines as stated in the attached Table 4.

C. Around December 15, 2009, the Plaintiff left the Defendant’s factory, and operated “D” with K from January 201 to January 2010.

At present, the machines listed in the attached list 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as "the machines listed in the attached list") are possessed by the defendant according to the sequences.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 8-1 through 5, Gap evidence 9, Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Plaintiff, while manufacturing the basic framework of the machinery of Paragraph 1, brought it to the Defendant’s factory, he/she acquired the ownership of the machinery of Paragraph 1 from the original date. The machinery of Paragraphs 2 and 3, which the Plaintiff brought to the Defendant’s factory, was owned by the Plaintiff from the original date. While manufacturing two cut machines at the Defendant’s factory, the Plaintiff, while manufacturing two cut machines at the Defendant’s factory, agreed that the 4M cutting machine of the 3M size was owned by the Defendant, and therefore, the 4M size was owned by the Plaintiff.