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

A. On January 27, 2016, the Defendant was awarded a successful bid of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant buildings”) in the procedures for the auction of the rent of real estate in Suwon District Court C or D (Dual) and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

B. On April 25, 2016, the Defendant received an order to deliver real estate (F) with respect to Nos. 304 and 28.98 square meters inside the instant building (hereinafter “instant 304 square meters”) among the three floors of the instant building, from Nonparty E, who is the former owner of the instant building, in sequence, connected each of the items indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 1 among the three floors of the instant building. On April 27, 2016, the Defendant was also subject to a decision to prohibit the transfer of real estate possession (the same court 2016Kadan606).

C. The Defendant tried to execute the delivery of real estate on July 20, 2016, but became aware that Nonparty G was living in the instant case No. 304.

On October 10, 2016, the Defendant accepted the succession execution clause with three (3) persons, including G, Plaintiff, and Nonparty H, the Plaintiff’s seat, as the successor of the obligor E, and completed the delivery execution of real estate as to the instant subparagraph 304 on October 28, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff, as a creditor holding the claim for construction cost of KRW 310 million against E, directly occupied the instant subparagraph 304 from the end of May 2014, or indirectly occupied through H, and exercised the right of retention. As such, the Defendant’s compulsory execution by accepting the succeeding execution clause that the Plaintiff was the successor of E is unlawful, and the instant subparagraph 304 should be returned to the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant is not the creditor of the construction cost for E, and the defendant, on October 28, 2016, claimed that the other party who completed the delivery of real estate regarding No. 304 of this case, was G.

3. Determination

A. Article 204(1) of the Civil Act of the relevant legal doctrine provides that if the possessor was deprived of possession, the possessor shall return the article and compensate for the damage.