The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The movables indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant genderization”) were posted in the Defendant church. However, on November 3, 2012, a written agreement on the possession of genderization (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to the said genderization was prepared as follows, and the said written agreement signed by the Plaintiff and the head, C, D, E, witness F, and G seal.

Items: The church shall be the franch (150 cm: 150 cm, 210 cm: 10 cm)

2. Items: The properties of a tree on the left-hand side of the church platform (Ga: 150 cm in length: 210 cm in length);

3. Items: Maternation (Gae: 240 cm) of the pre-service room(200 cm) is also Maternation (Gae: 200 cm). The 3 points above may continue to be posted when keeping the custody in the present state as the possession of A wood company. However, even when one sex is moved, three points shall be refunded to A wood company when moving.

B. Among the sexation of the instant case, one point was posted at the entrance of the Defendant church, but later transferred to the corridor of the second floor sound room.

C. On February 7, 2019, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the composition of this case in accordance with the instant agreement, but the Defendant rejected the request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In accordance with the Plaintiff’s argument, the sex of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff permitted the posting of this case to the Defendant’s church on the condition that the sex of this case is not moved, and since the above sex of this case was moved, the Defendant should return the above sex of this case to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading by the witness of the subject of ownership of the sex composition of the instant case, the Plaintiff and Nonparty H requested Nonparty I to produce the sex composition of the instant case on or around 1985. Nonparty H received the delivery on or around 1987 and paid the said sexization through the Plaintiff. Nonparty H thought that the said sexization was a contribution to the Defendant church and delivered it to the Plaintiff.