1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The scope of the judgment of the court of first instance cited a request for extradition and a claim for damages, and dismissed the claim for damages, and only the Defendant appealed, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the scope of the request for extradition.

2. The reasons to be stated in this judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following ‘3. Additional determination' as to the argument added by this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Additional determination

A. In light of the following: (a) there is no sales contract between the Plaintiff and E as to the instant excavation machines; (b) a ordinary financial institution’s loan takes place at 50-60% prior to the subject-matter value; (c) a financial institution’s loan as a security for the instant excavation machines is KRW 60 million; (d) the loan amount as claimed by the Plaintiff exceeds KRW 90% of the sales price; (e) the Plaintiff asserts that the above loan amount was paid at KRW 63 million; (e) the Plaintiff paid KRW 63 million in a lump sum; and (e) the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff purchased KRW 63 million in a lump sum; and (e) the instant excavation period was sold at KRW 45 million at the time when the Plaintiff purchased KRW 63 million and four months; and (e) the Plaintiff did not take prompt legal procedures to transfer this hour, the Plaintiff’s husband, who is the Plaintiff’s husband, arbitrarily obtained a certificate of personal seal impression from D to obtain the instant excavation machines as security;

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration on the mining ground of this case, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the genuine owner of the mining ground of this case.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant asserts in light of the overall purport of the arguments, which can be seen from the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 15-1 through 16.