1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. According to the plaintiff's expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, the defendant 60.

1. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment are as follows: “as of August 20, 2012” in Part 3, 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance “as of March 31, 2013”; “67,790,000 won ( = 60,790,000 7,000),” in Part 14, “67,790,000 won ( = 60,790,000 7,000,000)” (as of 60,790,000,000 won for delay damages from the date of the Defendant’s illegal possession to “as of March 31, 2013,” and there is no evidence that the witness of this case had already been 40,790,000 won from the date of delivery of a copy of the statement of claim to the date of expiration 10, 2014.”

2. In addition, the defendant asserts that the defendant only has the duty to permit the plaintiff to collect the cater of this case, and that even if the defendant did not deliver the cater of this case to the plaintiff, it is not the plaintiff to exercise his right, but it is not the defendant's tort.

The facts that the defendant occupied the cater of this case without any title are as seen earlier, and therefore the defendant is obligated to deliver the cater of this case to the plaintiff. However, the cater of this case is the factory of this case.