2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

2. Around December 2009, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with D for KRW 470,000,000 for construction cost, and completed approximately 90% of construction cost until December 2014.

After that, the Plaintiff occupies each of the above immovables to secure the claim for construction cost of KRW 423,00,000, which was not received from D.

Since the plaintiff occupies each of the above immovables on the basis of the right of retention that can be set up against the defendant, compulsory execution under the defendant's order to deliver real estate shall be denied.

3. The order to deliver real estate is a judgment to which only an appeal can be lodged (see Article 136(5) of the Civil Execution Act) and constitutes an executive title stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 56 of the Civil Execution Act.

Where a judgment against which only a complaint may be lodged is an executive title, only the grounds that have arisen after the establishment of the judgment by applying mutatis mutandis Article 44 (2) of the Civil Execution Act pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act may be asserted as the grounds for an objection to the lawsuit.

However, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for objection are merely derived before the extradition order of this case, even based on the assertion itself, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for excluding the executory power of the extradition order of this case.

Therefore, the claim of this case cannot be accepted regardless of whether the plaintiff is a legitimate lien holder.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.