2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

A. In the former District Court E’s auction procedure for the instant factory building, etc. owned by D (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), the said court rendered a decision to voluntarily commence the auction on November 26, 2010, and the entry registration was completed on the same day.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Selected C received the decision to permit the sale of the instant factory building at the instant auction procedure, and paid the sales price on March 26, 2013.

(3) On December 28, 2010, the Defendant reported that the right of retention was exercised with respect to the instant factory building to the instant ordinary court. As of the closing date of pleadings in the instant case, the Defendant occupied the instant factory building as of the closing date of pleadings.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has a duty to deliver the above building to the plaintiff and the designated party C, the owner of the factory building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's right of retention defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) concluded a contract with D on May 18, 2009 for the construction of the factory building of this case in KRW 152,00,000, and completed the construction from May 20, 2009 and around July 2009. On August 30, 2009, the Defendant decided the said construction cost as KRW 244,520,000 by taking into account additional construction works, etc. between D and D on August 30, 2009.

In order to secure the claim for the above construction price, the Defendant has continuously occupied the building of the instant plant on June 9, 2010, which was prior to the date of the entry registration of the decision on commencing the auction of the instant case ( November 26, 2010), and has continuously occupied the instant building until the date of the completion of pleadings. As such, the Defendant may oppose the Plaintiff, the purchaser of the instant auction procedure, as the above lien.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that ① the Defendant lost possession of the instant factory building on or around December 2010, and thus, thereafter commenced the possession of the said building.