1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the claim for acquisition of the procedure for occupancy transfer among the part regarding the principal lawsuit.

1. The scope of the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted the claim of the principal lawsuit and dismissed the counterclaim. Since the Defendant appealed only to the principal lawsuit among the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of the appellate court is limited to the principal lawsuit.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a person who sells ships and repairs business, etc. under the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a person who engages in water-related leisure business.

B. On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell 130ma ships (E), 115ma ships (F), vessels listed in the separate sheet (G; hereinafter “instant vessels”), and three vessels in total to KRW 42 million. On the same day, the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million from the Defendant as down payment.

C. The Defendant requested the delivery of the above three vessels in advance on the grounds of ship test operation, safe inspection, registration, etc. The Plaintiff delivered the instant vessels to the Defendant on April 20, 2014 and then delivered all the said three vessels around that time. On April 9, 2014 and May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff received KRW 20 million in total from the Defendant as part payment.

C. On May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract to pay the remainder of KRW 12 million as the purchase price of the instant vessel, and to pay KRW 5 million as the remainder of KRW 7 million on June 16, 2014, and to pay KRW 7 million on June 27, 2014.

On May 23, 2014, the Defendant received a vessel safety inspection on three vessels including the instant vessel, issued a vessel safety inspection certificate on the 26th of the same month, and completed the registration of the vessel with respect to the three vessels on June 4, 2014.

E. On June 17, 2014, the Defendant did not pay KRW 12 million by the aforementioned due date. On June 17, 2014, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to repair on the engine part of the instant vessel.

On June 18, 2014, the Plaintiff’s instant vessel from the Defendant.