2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In other words, when the Plaintiff referred to this title, the Plaintiff completed construction work equivalent to KRW 184,50,000,000, in total, with the permission of the former owner of Pyeongtaek-si C and the building on the ground (hereinafter “instant land and building”) at the lower order of the non-party Domd Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Domdmdmdmdmd”), which was the former owner. However, the Plaintiff asserted that compulsory execution based on the above order of delivery of real estate should not be permitted since the Plaintiff occupied the instant land and building on the ground that he did not pay the construction cost, while exercising the right of retention.

However, under the circumstances where the Plaintiff voluntarily stated that the construction of the instant building was commenced on April 2014, according to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 1-1, the fact that the auction of real estate (D real estate auction) which served as the basis of the order for delivery of real estate was decided October 22, 2013, and the record of the decision on commencement of auction was completed around that time.

In fact, the plaintiff's claim for the above construction payment occurred after the decision to commence the auction of the land and buildings in this case, whether it was a lusheed or not.

Therefore, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who is the successful bidder with the lien which is a secured claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da22688 Decided August 19, 2005). Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

In other words, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendant recognized the plaintiff's right of retention while the auction of the above real estate was in progress and agreed to accept it, the execution of delivery based on the above order of delivery of real estate was improper, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it only by the witness E's testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion