2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the claim is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of “(nine months)” to “(nine months7/31)” of the judgment of the court of first instance as “(nine months and seven/31).” As such, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not receive the claim for construction cost, and exercised the right of retention, and even in the lawsuit brought by F, the plaintiff was deprived of possession by the execution of unjust delivery order even after the defendant was recognized as the right of retention. Thus, the plaintiff confirmed that the right of retention on the apartment of this case was the defendant, and delivered the apartment of this case to the defendant, or acquired it in selective manner, and delivered it against the defendant and extinguished the right of retention. This is unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith and fairness, which are the major principle of the Civil Code, and therefore, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant should pay to the defendant the amount equivalent to 57 million won, which is the secured claim of the defendant's right of retention.

B. On the other hand, the judgment of the court below is based on the defendant's defense that he is the legitimate lien holder for the apartment of this case, and the defendant, as the secured claim for the lien, ① the claim for the construction price against D, ② the claim for construction price against D, or the obligation for the construction price as D, is exempted.