1. The part against the defendant concerning the conjunctive claim for a judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The plaintiff, within the scope of the judgment of this court, sought delivery and rent of the above machinery or return of its corresponding profits on the grounds that the plaintiff, around the other hand, leased the machinery listed in the separate sheet to the defendant, and then cancelled the lease contract, and the court of first instance dismissed the claim related to the machinery listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 4, and 2, 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the main claim and the conjunctive claim") and rendered a judgment citing part of the part related to the machinery listed in the separate sheet No. 2, 2, and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the machinery of this case").

Since only the defendant appealed, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the parts related to the machinery of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this case for which the judgment against the defendant was rendered among the plaintiff's conjunctive claims.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the machinery of this case Nos. 2 and 3 owned by the Plaintiff was occupied and used from November 1, 2013, and sought the return of profits from the return of the said machinery and the use of the said machinery.

However, the result of the examination conducted by the plaintiff himself is insufficient to recognize that the machinery of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(M) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 6 and 7-2 of evidence Nos. 7-2, the machinery of this case was purchased from Sung Metal Co., Ltd. on or around September 4, 2009 by H, who operated G, and the machinery of this case also purchased from Sung Metal Co., Ltd. on or around November 24, 2009. Accordingly, the aforementioned assertion by the Plaintiff on a different premise is without merit without having to examine it.

3. Accordingly, the part relating to machinery of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this case among the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed as it is without merit.