유치권부존재 확인 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Defendant asserts that there exists a lien since the Plaintiff’s possession only is the land of this case and the Defendant still occupies the building of this case. "Possession" means an objective relationship that shows that the object belongs to a person’s factual control by social norms, and to have de facto control, it does not necessarily mean physical and practical control over the object, but should be determined jointly with social norms in consideration of the time, space and principal relation with the object, possibility of exclusion from others’ control (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530, Sept. 24, 2009). The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone insufficient to recognize that the Defendant occupied the building of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The direct evidence that the Defendant occupied the building of this case is difficult to acknowledge that the Defendant installed the building of this case and the construction of the building of this case 10 or 200 square meters (the construction of the building of this case, 10 or 300 square meters, which is the site of this case). However, it appears that the Plaintiff did not have been under control over each of the building of this case.