1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 26, 2007, C Co., Ltd. completed a total of 543 guest rooms and 65 commercial buildings on the land of Busan Maritime Daegu D, 2007, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the sectional owners who purchased each of the guest rooms of the hotel of this case.

B. On December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff was entrusted by C Co., Ltd. with the business of operating and managing the instant hotel and re-entrusted with the business of managing the instant hotel by B Co., Ltd., which performed the business of managing the instant hotel, and thereafter has been performing the business of managing the instant hotel since that time.

C. Pursuant to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, the Defendant, a hotel management body of the instant hotel, comprised of the persons holding the ownership of the instant hotel, filed an application against the Plaintiff for a provisional disposition of real estate name enhancement as to the instant hotel by Busan District Court Branch Branch 2017Kahap10045, and the said court, on June 13, 2017, rendered a decision on the condition that “the Plaintiff will deliver each building indicated in the attached list of provisional disposition to the Defendant by September 13, 2017” (hereinafter “instant provisional disposition order”).

According to the instant provisional disposition decision, the Defendant delegated the execution to an execution officer affiliated with the Busan District Court's Dong Branch's branch's branch's branch's office, and completed the delivery execution of each building listed in the separate disposition quoted in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each building of this case") on September 21, 2017 and November 23, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff alleged that he occupied each of the buildings of this case and performed the business of managing the hotel of this case while exercising the right of retention on each of the buildings of this case, but the defendant was in accordance with the provisional disposition decision of this case.