1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff each of the items indicated in the “Quantity of the Defendant’s possession” column in the attached list.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a lelet lease contract between eight companies, including a lotbrate Co., Ltd., and lent a lelet to the said companies, and the said companies loaded goods in a lelet and transported them to the customer.

B. The business partner of the Defendant loaded and supplied the raw materials to the Plet, owned by the Plaintiff, when the Defendant supplied the raw materials purchased by the Defendant.

C. On November 7, 2017, no later than the date of the closing of the instant argument, the Defendant occupies each set indicated in the “number of Defendant possession” column in the annexed sheet as of November 7, 2017.

[Based on recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 and 17 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), each video of Gap evidence No. 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant has the obligation to deliver each of the pertinent Plets to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the money converted into the ratio of each of the money indicated in the “value of the Plaintiff’s assertion” listed in the separate sheet listed in the Plaintiff’s ownership (as of October 31, 2016). If the obligation to deliver each of the aforementioned Plets becomes impossible, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the money converted into the ratio of the money indicated in the separate sheet listed in the

B. 1) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver each piece of pat in the “Quantities of the defendant’s possession” column in the attached list owned by the defendant to the plaintiff. 2) The plaintiff also seeks to deliver over each piece of pat in excess of pat as indicated in the “Quantities of the defendant’s possession” column in the attached list. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant possessed a pat corresponding to the above excessive portion even as of the date of closing argument in this case, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

C. The obligee’s claim for the subject claim is an additional claim to compensate for the compensatory damages on behalf of the obligee.