1. The defendant shall deliver each of the goods listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

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

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C (Representative D; hereinafter referred to as “C”) and C (hereinafter referred to as “the gold-type”) to manufacture the gold-type in the separate sheet 69,300,000 (including value-added tax) for the production cost and to establish it in E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) factory (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

B. According to the instant contract, C requested E to produce the instant gold model, and E completed the production of the instant gold model, and then installed the instant gold model in his factory.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff was supplied with the Tepool produced from C using the gold type of this case. Since C discontinued on September 21, 2009, the Plaintiff was supplied with the Tepool produced using the gold type of this case from the Defendant (the same representative director as the Defendant’s representative director) (the same).

On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for rehabilitation procedures to Suwon District Court (2013 Gohap90), and the Defendant reported 548,949,855 won including the production cost of the gold sentence in this case as rehabilitation claims.

On January 13, 2014, the Defendant filed an objection against the foregoing claim with the Suwon District Court Decision 2014Ma18, the Defendant applied for the final inspection judgment on rehabilitation claims. The said court determined that there was no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the remainder of the claim for the price of goods, including the cost of production of the gold in this case, on August 1, 2014.

Therefore, although the defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the judgment in claim allowance proceedings (U.S. District Court 2014Gahap11362), the above court rendered a judgment against the defendant, and the defendant appealed and appealed, but all of the appeals were dismissed.

E. After October 14, 2014, the Defendant removed the instant gold punishment, which was kept in E, and the instant gold punishment is kept by the closing date of the argument in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5, 12-14 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the main issue of the gold punishment of this case.