The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

1. The defendant's appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance different from the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined, the recognition of the facts of first instance and the judgment are justifiable.

Therefore, the judgment of this court is citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds in the trial of the court, and thus, it is citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s claim by the Plaintiff is groundless on the premise that the Defendant acquired the instant machinery from the Plaintiff, on the following grounds: (a) the attached list machinery (hereinafter “the instant machinery”) was acquired by full payment of the lease fee for the Defendant’s wife C; and (b) the Defendant did not accept it from the Plaintiff.

However, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 9, and 10 and the overall purport of the pleadings between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant machinery in the written agreement (Evidence No. 3, hereinafter “instant agreement”) signed on June 21, 2017, and the Defendant is written as the buyer of the instant machinery, and the Defendant is written as the consignee of the instant machinery, and the I prepares a estimate (Evidence No. 9) for the instant machinery (Evidence No. 10) to the Plaintiff around July 2016, and also issues a tax invoice (Evidence No. 10).

According to the above facts, C acquired ownership of the instant machine, and transferred the instant machine to I, and the Plaintiff acquired it from I and transferred it again to the Defendant. During this process, it is determined that the instant agreement was made by the Defendant to accept the Plaintiff’s lease contract with H Co., Ltd.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance as to this conclusion is consistent with this conclusion.