1. The Defendants shall deliver to the Plaintiff movables 1 and 2 attached to the Plaintiff.

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

On November 11, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for mechanical installation works with PPS Co., Ltd. and established machinery, apparatus, etc. in a factory owned by PPPS C, and entered into a contract for transfer of security on movable property listed in attached Table 1 as security for the price therefor, and notarized it. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for movable property listed in attached Table 1 at the auction procedure for corporeal movables conducted on the basis of the notarial deed for transfer security; and the Plaintiff purchased movable property listed in attached Table 2, installed it in the above PPS factory, installed in the above PPS factory, and operated the factory in the same manner with PPS and around May 2014; on the other hand, the Defendants did not dispute between the parties, or are recognized to have occupied the aforementioned movable property after being awarded the contract at the auction procedure at PPSSSS, based on comprehensive consideration of the purport of each Party Gap-1 through 3, Gap-1 through 51-1, and Gap-1-1 through 5.

The Defendants asserted that, on November 201, from among movable property listed in the separate sheet 1, the tunnels were exchanged with the Switzerland owned by Defendant B (PP) around November 201, and that, since the Defendants delivered the Switzerland on May 28, 2015 to the Plaintiff, the aforementioned tunnel was not owned by the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was awarded the above movable property in the auction procedure for corporeal movables after the conclusion of the exchange contract asserted by the Defendants, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the above exchange contract since it cannot be deemed that delivery of the said movable property after the conclusion of the exchange contract. Therefore, the above assertion

The Defendants asserted that the latter had already returned the latter among the movables listed in the attached Form 1 List of Machinery and Instruments, but the said assertion is not accepted on the sole basis of the entries in Section 6.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.