1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff movable property listed in the annexed sheet.

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

3...

1. According to the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 6 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 163,420,00 the movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the movables of this case”) at the auction auction case of Suwon District Court which was KRW 2015,426, Apr. 30, 2015, and at KRW 163,420,00, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the movables of this case by paying the proceeds from the sale on the same day. The fact that the Defendant occupied the movables of this case does not conflict between the parties, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the movables of this case to the Plaintiff, the owner,

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant has no obligation to deliver the above movable property inasmuch as the defendant has no commercial lien on the movable property of this case, which is owned by the net net bond owned by the factory in his possession, because he leases part of the factory to the net bond, which is the owner of the movable property of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "net bond").

Therefore, Article 58 of the Commercial Act provides that, in a case where a claim arising from a commercial activity between merchants is due, the obligee may retain the goods or securities owned by the obligor, which are possessed by the obligee through the commercial activity with the obligor, until the obligee receives repayment, until the obligee is reimbursed. While the Defendant and the net Furd are both merchants, the ownership of the movable property of this case is not the net Furd, as seen above, that the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant cannot claim the commercial lien against the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.