1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a child of C, and the Defendant is a company director of D (hereinafter “D”) with the business purpose of software development, maintenance, and repair.

B. On June 15, 2017, C entered into a “contract on the sale and consignment management of mining machines” with D.

C. On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a “contract for entrusted operation of mining season” with E.

On the other hand, on July 29, 2018, the Defendant brought 20 virtual currency extraction equipment in E’s mining plant, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant as larceny in relation to the above act by the Defendant. On November 26, 2018, the Prosecutor decided that the virtual currency extraction equipment brought by the Defendant is not deemed the Plaintiff’s ownership, and that C agreed that the Defendant would bring the extraction equipment due to its failure to pay the amount of the extraction equipment in full (Evidence).

On April 9, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed against the decision that the said suspicion was groundless, but the said appeal was also dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion was about 20 mining seasons brought by the Defendant at the E plant on July 29, 2018, the Defendant stolen them, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay 50 million won and damages for delay incurred by the said tort.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to deem that the Defendant stolen the extraction machine owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 9 and 10 to the entire purport of the pleading, namely, the Plaintiff asserts that C donated the extraction machine to the Plaintiff, and the contract for the entrusted operation of the extraction machine with E is also the Plaintiff. However, the mining machine is the Plaintiff.