1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 6, 2017, B Co., Ltd. (A) drafted a notarial deed of a contract for debt repayment by means of security for transfer (hereinafter “notarial deed”) to the Plaintiff.

B. The main content of the notarial deed was to approve the fact that the said stock company B assumed the Plaintiff with the obligation of KRW 30 million, and to repay it until December 30, 2017. However, the said notarial deed was transferred to the Plaintiff by way of an alteration of possession of ownership of two automatic machinery (12m in length), computer 3, and one set of printing machines (12m in length), including the movable property located in Daegu-gu Seo-gu, as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the movable property of this case”) for the purpose of securing the performance of the obligation. The Plaintiff transferred the said notarial deed to the Plaintiff and lent it to the Plaintiff without compensation.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff and the defendant asserts to the following purport:

Plaintiff

The Plaintiff is the owner who received the instant movable property as security for transfer, and the Defendant occupied the instant movable property possessed by B without permission.

Therefore, the defendant should deliver the movable property of this case to the plaintiff, and if it is impossible to execute it, 30 million won and damages for delay must be paid.

B. On June 23, 2017, the Defendant produced the instant movable upon the Defendant’s request for production, and supplied the instant movable to B.

However, in the case of the contract between B and B, the ownership of the movable property of this case was transferred, and the corporation B did not pay the remainder of the goods.

Therefore, since the ownership of the movable property of this case is owned by the defendant, the plaintiff cannot respond to the claim.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire pleadings of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (the Plaintiff asserted that the forgery was forged, but it is not sufficient to recognize forgery only with the fact confirmation certificate of preparation C, and there is no other evidence) of the judgment as to May 31, 2017.