유치권존재확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and thus, this case is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following addition.
The following shall be added between the five pages and three of the judgment of the first instance:
“C. Even if the Plaintiff had the right of retention on the instant building, insofar as the Plaintiff lost possession on the instant building, as long as it was caused by the Defendant’s unlawful deprivation of possession as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the right of retention will cease to exist. However, if the Plaintiff restores possession by filing a lawsuit for recovery of possession under Article 204 of the Civil Act, such as obtaining a favorable judgment, etc., the right of retention would cease to exist. However, the Plaintiff’s right of retention cannot be deemed to have existed until the possession was restored by the aforementioned method (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da46215, Feb. 27, 2004). However, insofar as the Plaintiff did not recover possession on the instant building, the Plaintiff’s right of retention on the instant building cannot be deemed to exist, in view of such circumstances.”
2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.