2. The plaintiff's claim added in the trial is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party, and the costs of appeal incurred by additional claims in the trial shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.

2. Of the instant building, possession of the remainder except for the parts connected in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 of the separate drawings indication 1, 3, 4, 5, and 1, shall be restored to the original state, and delivered to the Plaintiffs (the Plaintiffs added this part of the claim at the trial).

3. The defendant shall not interfere with the plaintiffs' possession of the building of this case.

Defendant: The part against Defendant in the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of "A 14 or 25 evidence (including each number)" to the part of the evidence stated on the fourth part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "part of Non-Party 1's testimony of Non-Party 1's witness of the court of first instance". Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination as to the claim for confirmation of lien and the claim for prohibition of interference with possession

A. Determination on the grounds of the plaintiffs' claims

(1) The scope of plaintiffs' possession

As of the date of closing argument of this case, the office part of the building of this case among the buildings of this case is used as the office in possession of the plaintiffs, and the remaining part is possessed by the defendant and doing so so so.

In light of the fact that the office of this case is located in the center of the building of this case, and the written decision of provisional disposition of this case is attached to two places in the building of this case, and the remaining part of the office of this case belongs to the defendant and is the place where the plaintiffs forced possession of the office of this case, the plaintiffs asserted that the office of this case continues to occupy the whole building of this case by occupying the part of the office of this case. Thus, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged as follows: ① the defendants occupied the remaining part of this case and conducting soup business, i.e., the office of this case, i., the office of this case, i.e., the office of this case, and i., the evidence Nos. 5, 9-4, 11, 12-7, i.e., the office of this case, and i., the office of this case, i.e., the defendant did not have any key to the above office of this case from 20 years prior to the execution of provisional disposition of this case.

In addition, the plaintiffs asserts that the rest of the office of this case is an indirect possession through the defendant, but the plaintiffs' indirect possession through the defendant is recognized to be recognized, and the plaintiffs should be able to exercise their right to claim the return of possession against the defendant. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there exists such an indirect possession between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(2) Sub-committee

Thus, barring special circumstances, the plaintiffs have a lien only on the part of the office part of this case, namely, indication 1, 2, c. c. c. d. d. d. d. e. d. e. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

(1) At the time of the instant construction contract, the Defendant asserted that, under the good faith principle, the right of retention cannot be set up against the Defendant, who is the purchaser of the auction procedure under the right of retention, since it could not be set up against the Defendant, under the following: (a) prior to the instant construction contract, 4 recommendations or provisional seizure was registered under the name of the above right of collateral security, Pakistan Savings Bank, Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, etc. prior to the instant construction contract; (b) there was a registration of seizure or provisional seizure in the instant building under the name of the Plaintiff, including the establishment of a mortgage of the maximum debt amount of 1.82 billion won; and (c) there was several proposals, provisional seizures, etc., including the establishment of a mortgage over the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation’s maximum debt amount of 1.82 billion won; and (d) the secured debt or secured debt amount were more than 3 billion won; and (e) the Plaintiffs could not be set up at the time of the instant construction contract, in light of the fact that the Plaintiffs did not have any further been aware of the construction cost.

(2) The defendant asserts that the right of retention cannot be held on the ground that the plaintiff could not submit a written subcontract or a written estimate prepared between the non-party company and the non-party company, among the plaintiffs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 20, 22 cannot be held on the ground that there is no secured claim. Thus, the defendant's assertion on the following is without merit: (a) the evidence Nos. 1-3, 4, 9-1, 2, 3, 17-1, 5-5, and part of the testimony of the non-party 1 at the trial court, and (b) the above plaintiffs have a claim related to the construction of the building of this case against the non-party company.

(3) In addition, the defendant argues that the construction content of the plaintiff 6 is the installation of shower box, etc. and the construction content of the plaintiff 13 is the installation of computer terminal, etc., and the plaintiff 13 merely collected the computer terminal, etc. immediately after the non-party company's default. Thus, the plaintiff 13 asserted that the above plaintiffs did not have a lien. Thus, in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, the above plaintiffs asserted that the above plaintiffs did not have a lien, and the construction of shower, computer terminal, etc. was done as alleged by the defendant, but there is no ground to deem that the claims of the above plaintiffs due to the above construction cannot be a claim of lien (the same shall apply when considering that the above plaintiffs are merchants subject to the Commercial Act), and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff 13 collected the computer terminal, etc. after the non-party company's default, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim for possession recovery

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs received a provisional disposition against the defendant to prohibit possession of the building of this case and attached a written decision and appointed a manager to occupy the whole building of this case. However, around March 4, 2007, the defendant opened a lock of the building of this case and went out to occupy the building of this case against the plaintiffs' will. Thus, the defendant is obliged to restore the plaintiffs' possession deprived of it to its original state.

B. Determination

"Possession" refers to an objective relationship that shows that an object belongs to a factual control of that person under the social norms, and to have a de facto control, it does not necessarily mean that the object is physically and practically controlled, but should be determined in accordance with the social concept in consideration of the time, space and relationship with the object, the possibility of exclusion from the control of others, etc. It should be examined only as to whether the object has occupied at the time when the object was deprived of possession (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34543 delivered on July 25, 2003).

In this case, as to whether the plaintiffs had occupied the whole building of this case around March 4, 2007, as to whether they had occupied the whole building of this case, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiffs received a decision to prohibit possession of the whole building of this case as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 5, 15, 18-1, 19, 22, and some testimony of the above non-party Nos. 1, 19, and 22, as seen earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the other parts of the office of this case among the buildings of this case were delivered to the defendant at the time of the delivery execution of this case on Oct. 30, 206, and the non-party Nos. 2 and 3 did so within the building of this case except for the office of this case, and the key of the building of this case did not have access to the building of this case and did not have access to the building of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the above scope of recognition and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance on the right of retention confirmation and the right of prohibition of obstruction of possession is just, and the plaintiffs and the defendant's appeal are dismissed as they are without merit, and the additional right of possession recovery is dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Dong-ok (Presiding Judge) Kim Hong-il et al.