1. The Defendants shall deliver to the Plaintiff each movable property listed in the separate sheet.

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

1. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

A. On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (acquisition cost, KRW 140,00,000, KRW 366 months, monthly rent 2,259,778) that leases machinery listed in the attached list to Hassung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HassungC), and Hassung acquired the said machinery and installed and used it at the place of business.

According to the above lease agreement, the ownership of the said machinery is owned by the Plaintiff, and if there are reasons such as delinquency in the lease fee or allowing a third party to use the machinery without the Plaintiff’s consent, the lease agreement can be terminated. The said machinery must be returned.

HEM on April 3, 2014, sold the said machinery to Defendant MND Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, Defendant MND) at KRW 100 million (excluding value-added tax) by making a false statement that the said machinery is owned by HMC, and on April 10, 2014, it delivered the said machinery, and from that time, Defendant MND occupies and uses it.

D&M did not pay rent from September 2014, and the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract on this ground.

D&M was decided on November 6, 2014 to commence rehabilitation proceedings, and A (hereinafter referred to as Defendant A) was appointed as the custodian of the defendant rehabilitation debtor corporation and the defendant rehabilitation debtor corporation.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3, purport of the whole pleadings]

B. Since the above lease contract was terminated, the defendant A is obligated to deliver the above machinery to the plaintiff.

In addition, the owner of the above machinery is the plaintiff, and the defendant Medboard is obligated to deliver the above machinery to the plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense disputes

A. Defendant A, “A was decided on the commencement of the rehabilitation proceedings against IMC. Therefore, the proceedings relating to the debtor’s property shall be interrupted pursuant to Article 59(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. The Plaintiff’s request for extradition must be dismissed.”