The Defendant’s new construction of the instant building and the commencement of occupation A and B (hereinafter “A, etc.”) decided to construct D buildings with the size of 1st underground and 6th ground surface (hereinafter “instant building”) on the 3,023m2, Seo-gu Daejeon Daejeon District for Sports (hereinafter “instant land”).

The defendant was awarded a contract with A on May 9, 2006 for the above construction work amounting to KRW 6 billion.

On May 29, 2008, the Defendant agreed with A, etc. to increase the construction cost of the instant building as KRW 6.6 billion, and the said construction was completed on August 1, 2008.

On December 19, 2008, the Defendant attached to the exterior of the instant building a banner stating the phrase “the entire building is prohibited from entering because the Defendant exercises the right of retention,” etc.

On February 18, 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract for security service with the last resort group in the instant building.

On December 9, 2008, the Plaintiff’s Korea Exchange Bank (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant building E with the court for the commencement of auction.

On December 10, 2008, this Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence auction, and the record of the decision to commence auction was completed on the same day.

On February 8, 2010, the Plaintiff received a decision to permit the sale of the instant building in the said voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building by completely paying the sale price on March 18, 2010.

1) The Plaintiff’s building name lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “related lawsuit”) refers to the part of the building indicated in the [Attachment List No. 501] against the Defendant in this Court No. 2011Gahap8724 (the total of the five and six floors above the ground among the instant building; hereinafter “instant 501”).

A lawsuit seeking delivery was filed.

The defendant alleged that there is a legitimate right of retention regarding the above 501, and thus, he cannot comply with the request for extradition.