1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows.

As stated in paragraph (1), the first instance judgment shall be accepted and the first instance judgment shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment under paragraph (2) to the argument of the original defendant in the trial.

B. 1) Of the 3 pages 1, the phrase “10 units” in the order No. 24 column in the order No. 24 column in the column No. 4 column in the column No. 4 column in the column No. 4 column in the column No. 4 column, the phrase “10 delivery and Article 6 refusal to accept” shall be applied “6 delivery and Article 10 refusal to accept”.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Claim E or the Plaintiff attempted to enforce compulsory execution against each movable set forth in the separate sheet No. 1, but the decision to prohibit provisional disposal of each set of movable property was made, or the Defendant refused to deliver each set of movable property, thereby not being delivered each set of movable property.

Therefore, the defendant has the duty to keep the above movables with due care as a good manager until transferring them to E or the plaintiff.

However, inasmuch as the Defendant lost each of the above movables in breach of the above duty of care, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 172,632,00,00 to compensate for damages arising from the tort by the owner of each of the above movables or the Plaintiff who acquired the damage claim against the Defendant from E.

B) A claim for restitution of unjust enrichment: (a) if the Defendant occupied each movable set forth in the separate sheet Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 24, but intends to be exempted from the obligation to return unjust enrichment on the ground that it did not have any practical benefit, the Defendant ought to prove that it did not have any substantial benefit; (b) the Defendant failed to prove that it did not have any substantial benefit; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant was unable to prove that the sum of the amount equivalent to the royalty for each of the said movable property from December 1, 2011 to January 13, 2015 (the same shall apply).