1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) E, which operated D, is each machine indicated in the attachment on June 29, 2009 as indicated in the attachment (hereinafter “instant machine”).

(B) The agreement with F to acquire ownership of the instant machine after E paid a certain amount of lease fees by August 29, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) in the course of concluding a lease agreement with F.S. In relation to the F.S., the agreement is to acquire ownership of the instant machine (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On July 24, 2009, the Plaintiff and E, under the instant lease agreement, borrowed KRW 670,041,902 from the Plaintiff, and repaid the instant machinery in installments by August 29, 2014. As to the instant machinery owned by E, the Plaintiff and E drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for transfer security (hereinafter “instant contract for transfer security”) with the purport of establishing transfer security to the Plaintiff by means of an occupancy revision.

3 E acquired ownership of the instant machine, but failed to perform the installment payment in accordance with the instant notarial deed. As such, the Defendants possessing the instant machine are obliged to deliver the instant machine to the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee of the instant machine.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant security agreement was concluded on the ground that the instant lease agreement was terminated due to the nonperformance of the obligation to pay the lease fees under E, and as E is not terminated the instant lease agreement by paying the lease fees in full, the Defendants did not have any obligation to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the evidence No. 5 and evidence No. 6, it is recognized that the instant lease agreement and the instant transfer security agreement have been concluded.

However, in the following circumstances, Defendant B, who operated D, entered into a lease contract with F in the following circumstances, by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence No. 3, No. 5, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 1, No. 2, No. 2, and No. 2, No. 3, No. 5, and No. 2, and No. 2, No. 1, 2007.