1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' to the assertion that the plaintiff and the defendant added or emphasized in the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the parties' arguments and key issues 1) The agreement between the plaintiff 1 and 2 is that the defendant provides the plaintiff with each of the instant machinery as security with the plaintiff's claims against E as secured claims. The first and second agreement provides that "the plaintiff shall not sell, transfer, transfer, or establish the machinery provided as security when the defendant's production is in operation," and "the plaintiff shall not sell, transfer, transfer, or establish the machinery provided as security" (hereinafter "the provision of this case").

(2) While the Defendant uses the machinery, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not arbitrarily dispose of the machinery and does not prevent the Plaintiff from causing any damage to the side, and that the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant machinery to the Plaintiff for the exercise of security rights. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the Plaintiff the instant machinery to the Plaintiff for the exercise of security rights. In light of the following: (i) the first and second agreements did not explicitly state the secured claim; (ii) the Plaintiff was drafted with the first and second agreements to prevent the Plaintiff from interfering with the Defendant’s business; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s all dispositions are prohibited under the language and text of the instant provisions, and thus, the instant provisions prohibit the Plaintiff from exercising the security rights; and (ii) the Defendant did not have any obligation to deliver the instant machinery

3) The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff’s security right can be exercised in the event that the Defendant is engaged in the production of each of the instant devices in accordance with the interpretation of the first and second agreements. (B) Determination 1) There is a dispute over the interpretation of the contract between the parties, and the interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the disposal document becomes an issue