1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2013, June 25, 2013, the Defendant received delivery of each corporeal movable property (84 points, such as the net A’s pictures, etc.; hereinafter “instant art property”), as indicated in the attached list, and stored it in the Ildong-gu C container and plastic greenhouse in the ancient city.

B. On each day of the above delivery, the Defendant drafted a custody certificate stating that “for the purpose of storage: for the establishment of art galleries and memorial hall, for the establishment of the art gallery and memorial hall, and for the storage of the art of this case with the care of a good manager: Provided, That at the request of A, a white paper or his designated representative D, it shall be freely perused and verifiable (hereinafter “the custody certificate of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i) requested the Defendant, who was introduced by Nitre, Nitre, Nitre, who was aware of the location for keeping the art of this case, to store the art of this case due to the sale of the art gallery building where the art of this case was kept, during which the Plaintiff’s assertion was made. The Defendant consented to the request and entered into a deposit contract with the Defendant for a period of time without agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

However, the Defendant did not pay any attention necessary for the storage of art works, such as leaving the art works of this case left alone in containers and plastic houses.

The plaintiff terminated the above deposit contract with the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant must return the art of this case to the plaintiff.

Luxembourg Defendant’s argument ① was delivered to the Defendant on June 2013, but was donated by F, who was the head of the net A, rather than delivered by the network A.

The deceased, while divorced from G in 2009, donated the instant art product to G while divorced from G in 2009, G died without her child on November 2012, and F succeeded to G alone.

The defendant is as above.