점유회복
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Underlying facts, Plaintiff B, along with C, was awarded a subcontract of KRW 350 million among the new construction works of each of the instant building that was ordered by D from Lenono-Man on November 2, 2009, for the installation work of each of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction work”).
【Ground for recognition】An absence of dispute, and description of Gap's No. 1
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter, the Plaintiff Company) was transferred due to the waiver of the instant construction work among the instant construction works. The Plaintiffs, despite the completion of approximately 90% construction work upon performing the instant construction works, occupied each of the instant buildings and exercised a lien by occupying each of the instant buildings and exercising the right of retention. (2) However, the Defendant, around May 2013, destroyed corrective devices installed by the Plaintiffs, such as locks installed by the Plaintiffs, and deprived the Plaintiffs of possession by impairing each of the instant buildings. Accordingly, the Defendant sought against the Defendant for the recovery of possession of each of the instant buildings to recover the Plaintiffs’ lien.
B. In order for the plaintiffs to be recognized as the right of possession recovery, the facts that the plaintiffs occupied each building of this case on or around May 2013, 2013, which the defendant claimed that they occupied the building of this case, should be acknowledged. Accordingly, the evidence Nos. 6-2 of the evidence No. 6 and the testimony of the witness E and F are the management directors of the plaintiff company or their respective types of statements that do not have any reliable evidence to support them, and it is difficult to believe them in light of the facts that the plaintiff's assertion is repeated, and the statement Nos. 1 and 3 of the evidence Nos. 4-1 to 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the plaintiffs possessed each of the buildings of this case around May 2013 is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant is dismissed in entirety as there is no reasonable ground.