1. The Defendants shall deliver the goods listed in the attached Form to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff engaged in facility leasing business of machinery, etc. entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B on each of the machinery listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machinery”).

In cases where the acquisition cost is 335,000,000 won: the lease period and lease fee: 48 months (1-3 times, 1,507,500 won, and 7,230,400 won) at the rate of 5.4% per annum, and 25% per annum at the rate of overdue interest: the plaintiff may terminate the contract and claim the return of the machinery of this case where certain reasons, such as overdue interest rate, occur.

B. Defendant B received delivery of the instant machine in accordance with the lease agreement and installed and used it at the above location. The above location is the same as the address of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”).

At present, the instant machinery is installed in the above installation place.

C. Since then, Defendant B did not pay the lease fee and lost the benefit of the time limit on April 20, 2018, and the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the termination of the lease agreement on the grounds of delinquency in payment of the lease fee.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 8 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings (Defendant B, who is deemed as confessions)

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination due to overdue rental fees.

Therefore, Defendant B and Defendant C, the lessee, are obligated to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. In this regard, Defendant C asserts to the effect that Defendant C is not related to the aforementioned machinery, and Defendant C is not related to the possession of the instant machinery by F, which transferred the said installation from Defendant C.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, defendant C appears to have sub-leased the above place of installation to F Co., Ltd. on February 6, 2018 (five million won a monthly rent without a deposit) and the plaintiff.