1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 11, 2008, the Plaintiff substantially operated the said company with the husband of the representative director D, and on March 11, 2008, sold the remainder (hereinafter “the instant related machinery”) excluding the machines listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machinery”) to the Plaintiff at KRW 225 million in the purchase price.

B. At the request of the (ju) E representative Director F, the Plaintiff worked as the factory site of the above company Kimhae-si located in G in Kimhae-si, and lent the instant machinery to (ju) E without compensation.

C. Around June 2, 2009, the Defendant entered into a real estate lease agreement with I, a land owner of the above G, and purchased all of the instant machinery, related machinery, and other inventory goods, etc. ( de facto transfer of business) from E on June 20, 2009, in the price of 185 million won (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and operated “C” in the trade name.

On August 17, 2009, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the Defendant as of March 10, 2014, while taking charge of production management by joining the Defendant’s operation C.

E. Meanwhile, on April 30, 2014, C (State) requested the Plaintiff to return the instant machinery, and the same year.

5. 16. The Plaintiff transferred the instant machinery to the Plaintiff, and the same year.

6. 9. The Defendant notified the transfer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 2, 3, 4, 6 (including each number), witness F's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to return the above machinery to the plaintiff, the transferee of the instant machinery, as long as he/she did not assert and prove that he/she has a legitimate possessory right, and further is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the profits from use of the above machinery from the date of delivery to the completion

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant machinery was purchased from the owner (E) of the instant machinery, and that it was owned by the Plaintiff at the time.