1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the construction machinery (B) listed in the separate sheet;

B. From November 1, 2013, the above construction machinery.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 18, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased construction machinery listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant machinery”) and leased the instant machinery owned by Nonparty D at KRW 2,50,000 per lease period, KRW 7,50,000 per month, at the site of civil engineering works for three-line national highways located in Kimcheon-si C around April 18, 2012.

B. Around December 4, 2012, when the instant machinery was delivered and used under the above lease agreement, D borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul E building from the Defendant and arbitrarily transferred the instant machinery to the Defendant as collateral, and the Defendant currently occupies and uses the instant machinery.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff, and pay damages equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 7,500,000 per month from November 1, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of the instant machinery.

B. The defendant, while lending KRW 20,000,00 to D, properly occupies the machinery of this case as a pledgee in order to secure the loan claims. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is groundless. However, according to Article 9 of the Act on Mortgage on Specific Movables including Motor Vehicles, Construction Machinery shall not be subject to the right of pledge. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.