The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court, on the first ground of appeal, determined that the equipment, such as the M server and computer, were included in the scope of double leased goods, on the ground that it appears that the equipment, such as the M server and computer, also constitutes the goods subject to the instant lease agreement, at the same time, which are the goods subject to the instant lease agreement concluded with the T-Limited company (hereinafter “T”).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of legal act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. The lower court determined as to the ground of appeal No. 2, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, determined that even if the Plaintiff paid the full purchase price for the instant leased facilities to the Defendant under the instant lease contract, the ownership of the instant leased facilities cannot be acquired from the Defendant without the ownership of the instant leased goods, and the Plaintiff, who received the delivery of the instant dual leased goods by means of the amendment of possession, could not bona fide acquire the ownership of the instant leased goods, by acquiring the ownership of the instant leased facilities, by acquiring the ownership of the instant leased facilities including the instant double leased goods from D upon completing the payment of the purchase price on June 24, 2014 following the transfer of the possession of the instant leased facilities under the instant lease contract.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.