1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached list.

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

3...

1. In full view of the facts without a dispute over the basic facts and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the provisional number), the defendant, around the beginning of May 2014, may recognize the fact that the defendant, around the beginning of May, 2014, sold the unused steel, including the movable property listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the movable property of this case"), which was owned by Eul (hereinafter "C"), to the plaintiff on May 9, 2014, sold the purchase price to D in KRW 44,65,80. The plaintiff paid the purchase price to D and received the above disused steel directly from the defendant with the consent of the defendant, and thereafter, the defendant brought the above disused steel again in possession of the plaintiff on the ground that it was not able to receive the purchase price from D.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff is the owner of the movable property of this case, the defendant, who is the owner of the right to possess the movable property of this case, must deliver it to the plaintiff, and the defendant concluded a sales contract with D which did not grant the right to representation from C, so the contract between D and the defendant is null and void, and the contract with D are also null and void. Thus, the plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of the movable property of this case.

In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant sold the instant movable property to C, and that D sells it again to the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, and even if D did not obtain a lawful power of representation from D as the Defendant’s assertion, according to each of the above evidence and the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff did not have any particular circumstance to suspect that D was a de facto agent in terms of the contractual circumstances with D, the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to D, and the Plaintiff received the instant movable property with the Defendant’s permission, and other circumstances, such as the relationship and status between the parties to the transaction, the Plaintiff was unable to know that D was the owner of D.