1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the searcher engine as set out in the separate sheet.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the digging machines listed in the annexed list, which are construction machinery (hereinafter “instant digging machines”), who is engaged in construction machinery leasing business, etc. under the trade name “D”, and the Defendant Company is a construction machinery maintenance business, and the Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. Around September 2013, the Plaintiff, at the construction site located in Gwangju Mine-gu, requested the Defendant Company to repair engines due to the occurrence of a postponement of inspection in the engine (hereinafter “instant engine”).

(hereinafter “instant repair contract”). C.

Around September 10, 2013, the Defendant Company left the engine of this case and transported it to the maintenance plant of the Defendant Company. After the dissolution of the engine, the Defendant Company issued a written estimate for total repair costs of 14,823,930 to the Plaintiff. The Defendant Company occupied the engine of this case until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, witness F, G's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Plaintiff 1) Claim for the extradition of the instant engine against the Defendant Company: (a) The Plaintiff concluded an repair contract with the Defendant Company on the premise that it will repair the instant engine without leaving the engine; (b) the Defendant Company left the instant engine without the Plaintiff’s consent and brought the instant engine to its factory.

Therefore, Defendant Company is obligated to return the instant engine to the Plaintiff, as it illegally occupies the instant engine.

② Since Defendant Company, as a unregistered maintenance business entity, arbitrarily maintained the instant engine without the Plaintiff’s consent and breached its duty under the instant repair contract, the Plaintiff terminated the instant repair contract and sought the return of the engine.

B. The Plaintiff suffered business loss due to the Defendants’ refusal to return the instant engine against the Defendants.