손해배상(기)
All appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance is justified in its findings of fact and judgment.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except where partly modifying the contents and adding additional judgments to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, such as Paragraph 2, is the same as the part concerning the principal lawsuit among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary part] The fifth 16 through seventeenth 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance changed the "whether one has controlled access to the construction site of this case by means of a lawful exercise of a right of retention in response to his deprivation of one's own right of retention and his secession from it," into the "where one has controlled access to the construction site of this case by means of a lawful exercise of a right of retention in order to prevent his deprivation of one's right of retention from withdrawal from the construction site of this case."
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that even after the decision to commence the instant construction was in progress, and S, etc. tried to enter the instant land and buildings in order to exercise legitimate right of retention due to the claim for construction cost as to the instant building, and it did not interfere with the defendant's exercise of right of retention.
Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the instant decision and obstructed the construction of the Plaintiffs without justifiable reasons.
B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiffs actually carried out the construction of the instant building even after the decision on commencing the instant auction, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise.
Furthermore, due to the requirements for establishment of a lien, lawful possession is recognized (Article 320, Article 328 of the Civil Act), and there is a claim for construction price concerning the building in this case.