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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the content that a new construction project for the Plaintiff’s F factory on the land of Daegu-gun Factory Site 8,034,100 square meters owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction project”) shall be awarded a contract for the construction cost of KRW 2,00,000,000 (excluding value-added tax).

Around September 2015, the Defendant discontinued the instant construction work, from August 2016 to August 2016, put up a banner called during the exercise of lien on the instant factory, and attached Table 1-A.

Schedule 2-A of the same Schedule on the ground of the land described in the subsection.

The container and dog specified in the paragraph shall be installed, and the attached Table 1-b shall be installed.

b) section 2-b of the same list on the ground of the land described in the paragraph.

b) install containers described in the paragraph or set forth in 2-B.

The land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case") is occupied by loading the sponsed objects in the port by means of loading them.

(2) In light of the above facts, the defendant who occupies each of the lands of this case has a duty to collect or remove the containers of this case, which are loaded or installed on each of the lands of this case and deliver each of the lands of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land of this case, according to the above facts of finding that there is no dispute about the above containers, dogs, and the article 1, 3 through 8, 10 through 13 (including the paper numbers), the entries and images of Gap, the witness D of the first instance court, the witness D's testimony in the first instance court, and the appraisal of the land of the Korea Land Information Corporation in the first instance court, barring special circumstances.

Around January 2016, the Defendant asserted that the right of retention defense of the Defendant had been asserted by the Plaintiff and the construction amount of KRW 2,702,70,000 (i.e., KRW 2,457,00,000 of the construction amount of KRW 245,70,000). Since the Defendant received only KRW 1,839,713,336 of the construction amount from the Plaintiff, the Defendant received only a total of KRW 1,839,713,36 of the construction amount from the Plaintiff, the Defendant received only KRW 862,986,64 of the remainder of the construction payment claim against the Plaintiff.