1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had a claim for the payment of the construction cost against Nonparty C, who was the owner of the instant building, with respect to the construction of the instant building, etc., and from March 2012, the Plaintiff saw a banner from around March 2012, stating whether to exercise the right to retention on the said building, and has exercised the right to retention on the said building.

However, the Defendants deprived Defendant A of the Plaintiff’s possession without permission by entering into the above building on October 16, 2014 and removing locking devices, etc. In accordance with Article 204(1) of the Civil Act, the Defendants sought delivery of the above building to the Defendants pursuant to the Civil Act.

B. 1) Determination 1) In a case where the possessor was deprived of possession, the possessor may demand the return of the article (see, e.g., Article 204(1) of the Civil Act). This lawsuit for the recovery of possession is exempted only by examining whether the article was occupied at the time when the possessor asserts that he was deprived of possession. Here, the possession refers to the objective relationship that appears to belong to a person’s factual control under the generally accepted social norms, and to have de facto control, it does not necessarily mean that the article is physically controlled, but it is not necessarily a mere physical control, but should be determined jointly with the social concept, taking into account the time and spatial relationship between the article and the people, the possibility of excluding others’ control, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da8713, Aug. 23, 1996; 201Da61424, 61431, Feb. 23, 2011).