1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff (former trade name: KSF Capital Co., Ltd.) and A entered into a lease agreement with two machine learning center, including movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machinery”) owned by the Plaintiff, under which A leases two machines as follows (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). On the same day, the Plaintiff delivered two machine learning center to A.

Lease goods and quantity: The lease period of KRW 335,00,000 for the 48-month lease: 6.2% per annum on the lease interest rate of KRW 6,64,758 per 2-48 on the second installment payment, the first installment payment, the first installment, the amount of KRW 7,518,319 at 48: 6.2% per annum on the lease interest rate of KRW 6,64,758 at 2-48.

B. On several occasions, A did not pay the Plaintiff rent as stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and upon notifying A that the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement, A was terminated on June 29, 2015.

C. On the other hand, around November 29, 2014, A delivered the instant machine to the Defendant by entrusting the repair of the instant machine, and the Defendant currently occupies the instant machine.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The fact that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant machine, and the fact that the Defendant occupied the instant machine is as seen earlier, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant machine to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant has a legitimate title to possess the instant machinery by establishing a lien with a claim for repair costs against A as the secured claim.

The facts that A has entrusted the repair of the machinery of this case to the Defendant are as seen earlier, and the Defendant added the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the entries in No. 1-3 of the evidence No. 1-3, the Defendant is a manufacturing company of the machinery of this case through YS.