1. Defendant A shall deliver two inspection equipment listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff against the defendant B.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. The following facts are deemed to have been led to confession because the defendant was not present on the date of pleading, but failed to submit a written reply and other briefs, even though he was summoned lawful by public notice, and they do not clearly dispute them.

1) On October 17, 2011, the Plaintiff: two inspection equipment indicated in the separate sheet to Defendant A (hereinafter “instant inspection equipment”) (hereinafter “instant inspection equipment”).

) The loan was made by setting the lending fee of KRW 2,581,51 per month, and the lending period of KRW 36 months (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) Defendant A delayed the payment of the above loan fee at least twice, and the Plaintiff notified Defendant A of the termination of the instant contract around October 21, 2013.

B. According to the above facts, since the contract of this case was terminated upon termination, the defendant A is obligated to deliver the prosecutor's equipment of this case to the plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant inspection equipment, and the fact that Defendant B currently occupies the inspection equipment is no dispute between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the records in the evidence No. 1 and No. 6. 2) According to the above findings, the Defendant B, the possessor, is obliged to deliver the inspection equipment of this case to the Plaintiff seeking the return of the inspection equipment based on the ownership, barring any special circumstance.

B. Determination 1 on Defendant B’s assertion is based on the following: (a) Defendant B acquired the instant inspection equipment in good faith without knowledge of the ownership of the Plaintiff and possessed it by transfer from Defendant A without any negligence. Therefore, as Defendant B bona fide acquired the inspection equipment of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unreasonable; (b) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant B purchased the inspection equipment of this case from Defendant A around October 2012 and purchased the inspection equipment of this case from Defendant A on October 4, 2012, and KRW 53.9 million in total, KRW 3.9 million on October 5, 2012.