가. 인정 사실 원고는 동두천 지행동 동아프라임 아파트 신축공사를 시공 중이던 동아건설산업 주식회사(이하 ‘동아건설’이라고 한다)로부터 위 공사 중 토공 및 부대토목공사 부분을 하도급받아 수행하고 받지 못한 168,563,056원 상당의 공사대금채권을 피보전채권으로 하여 2014. 8.경부터 위 아파트 신축공사 현장 중 105동 건물 앞부분인 별지 목록 기재 토지 중 별지 도면 표시 ①, ②, ③, ④, ①의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㈎ 부분 36㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 토지’라고 한다) 위에 가로 6m, 세로 3m 크기의 사무실용 컨테이너 2동을 설치하고, 2인의 경비원을 고용하여 위 컨테이너에 상주하도록 하는 방법으로 이 사건 토지를 점유하고 있었다.

On September 30, 2016, the Defendant mobilized the car to enter the said two containers, removed the banner called “in the course of exercising the right of retention,” which was installed at the site, thereby excluding the Plaintiff’s possession, and acquired possession of the instant land.

The defendant succeeds to the construction work of the above apartment built by the East Asia and is in the process of the new construction work.

B. It is sufficient to prove that the claim for return of possession of the object stipulated in Article 204(1) of the Civil Act, which is determined by the judgment, is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff occupied the object and deprived of it by the defendant, and there is no need to prove that the possession of the object is based on the principal right.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da2459 Decided March 29, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the foregoing facts, the Plaintiff, who occupied the instant land on the ground of the right to retention of the instant real estate, was deprived of possession of the instant land by the Defendant without resorting to his/her intention, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion