1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts below the facts of recognition may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purpose of all pleadings in Gap evidence 1 to 4 and in witness E at the trial.

On July 25, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from E as of October 25, 201, the due date for payment was determined as of October 25, 201. A notary public between E and E entered into a security agreement on each of the machinery listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant notarial deed”) by preparing a notarial deed under a money loan contract for transfer and loan contract for transfer (hereinafter referred to as “instant notarial deed”) with a law firm new ice 201, No. 398, and delivered it to E by means of an alteration of possession.

(hereinafter “instant transfer security”). B.

E As the Defendant delayed the repayment of the above loan, on March 2, 2012, the execution clause was granted from the above law firm ice for compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed, but did not enforce compulsory execution on the instant machinery.

C. On March 16, 2012, E and the Defendant disposed of the instant machinery to the Plaintiff and settled the instant transfer security on the following terms (hereinafter “instant conditional sale”).

The proceeds from disposal: 30,000,000 won out of the proceeds from disposal of KRW 35,000,000 shall be appropriated to repay the principal and interest on bonds to the defendant in E, and 5,000,000 won shall be received by the defendant.

The above disposition is a condition precedent that the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 (the amount calculated by adding up the usage fees up to the point of the disposal price of KRW 35,00,000) until October 16, 2012, to the Plaintiff.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Inasmuch as Plaintiff 1’s assertion by the parties did not pay KRW 40,000,00 to the Plaintiff until October 16, 2012, and the instant machinery owned by the Plaintiff on a conclusive basis, the Defendant is obligated to return the instant machinery to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant machinery, and even if not, the Plaintiff is obligated to return it.