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. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 16, 2012, the Defendant entered into a transfer agreement with C (hereinafter “C”) with the content that the Defendant would be subject to the levy of the charge for manufacturing the astronomical air-conditioning equipment listed in the attached Table 1.

Of the companies that were in custody of the above gold punishment, D and E sent notice of transfer from C in October 2012 and notice of suspension of the use of gold from the Defendant in December 2012, 2012, they responded to the purport that the above transfer contract is null and void on the grounds that the ownership of gold in custody was not paid to the Defendant in December 2012.

B. On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase gold surcharges for manufacturing the astronomical air-conditioning equipment.

(hereinafter “instant sales”). The main contents of the instant sales contract are as follows.

(1) Sale objects: The details of sale objects shall be as follows, and the detailed details shall be attached thereto:

1. The term “gold punishment” means the gold punishment taken over by the defendant C;

(2) The purchase price: The total amount of 350 million won shall be 350 million won and shall be paid as follows:

1. 10 million won shall be paid on the date of contract;

2. 250 million won shall be paid by March 15, 2013;

C. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary lending agreement on KRW 350 million in order to secure the payment of the instant purchase price with the Defendant, and prepared and issued a notarial deed on it to the Defendant.

C. On June 13, 2013, the Defendant notified that the ownership of gold punishment was transferred to the Plaintiff upon the conclusion of the instant sales contract with safekeeping companies, including D and E.

However, D and E did not transfer the gold-type ownership in their custody because they did not pay the gold-type production cost.

D The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap70410 Decided December 17, 2013 ruled that C shall have the ownership of the gold penalty listed in attached Form 2 among the gold penalty listed in attached Table 1 Schedule D against C.