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 court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and the Plaintiff’s assertion presented by this court is identical to the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment identical to that of paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The “C” and the “L” of the first instance judgment shall be applied to both “M” and “M”.

The 8th two pages of the judgment of the first instance, F, "F," shall be construed as "F," "her father."

On the five pages of the judgment of the first instance court, the "Evidence A1 through 3" shall be raised with "Evidence A 1, 3, and 15".

2. Additional determination

A. As to the Defendant’s bona fide acquisition defense, the Plaintiff asserts that there is insufficient proof as to the fact that the Defendant was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff did not have the right to dispose of each of the above machinery.

B. The following circumstances, together with M, E, H, G, the Defendant’s mutual relationship and the developments leading up to the acquisition and disposal of each of the instant machines, as well as the developments leading up to the acquisition and disposal of each of the instant machines, as indicated in the evidence No. 2, are as follows: ① each of the instant machines was offered as a means of transfer by means of possession and alteration, and I continuously occupied and stored it, and it appears that there was no indication that it was a transfer security for each of the instant machines; ② even in the transfer contract between E and H on October 21, 2015, “the payment of KRW 100 million from the machinery supplied by H is made by December 31, 2016.” There is no content that the instant machine was supplied as a transfer security for the Plaintiff; ③ In addition, the fact that E and the Plaintiff did not notify in writing to H or the Defendant of the fact that each of the instant machines belongs to the ownership of each of the instant machines.