1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion made a roof type flag (hereinafter “instant machine”) by carrying KRW 180 million around 2010,000,000.

The defendant proposed to the plaintiff that he will substitute the business by using the instant machine, and the plaintiff accepted it and delivered the instant machine to the defendant at that time.

However, the Defendant later disposed of the instant machinery without the Plaintiff’s consent.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 180 million, which is the value of the instant machinery, as compensation for damages for the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership of the instant machinery.

2. Determination and conclusion of the Plaintiff’s assertion are premised on the premise that the owner of the instant machine is the Plaintiff, and there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant is recognized to have been delivered the machinery of this case by C, which the plaintiff's her her her her her her her her her her her her her representative director, and it

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.