1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 5, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant building, etc. was contracted with C to perform the steel-frame construction works, etc. from Company C, and the construction was conducted from February 10, 2017 to August 31, 2017.

However, since the above company did not pay the construction cost, it was exercising the lien while occupying the building in this case.

On December 2019, the Plaintiff occupied the instant building, and the Defendant, without the Plaintiff, deprived of the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant building.

The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 204(1) of the Civil Act.

2. Determination

(a) If an possessor has been deprived of his possession, he may demand the return, etc. of such article;

(see Article 204(1) of the Civil Act. In a lawsuit for the recovery of possession, it is exempted to examine only whether the person has occupied the object at the time of claiming that the person was deprived of possession. Here, the term “Possession” refers to the objective relationship in which the object is deemed to belong to the factual control of the person in terms of social norms, and the purpose of de facto control is not to necessarily mean that the object is physically and practically controlled, but to be determined in conformity with the concept of society by taking into account the time and spatial relationship with the object, the relationship between principal and the object, the possibility of excluding others’ control

(Supreme Court Decision 95Da8713 delivered on August 23, 1996). In addition, in the lawsuit for recovery of possession, possession includes not only direct possession but also indirect possession. However, in order to recognize indirect possession, it is necessary to establish indirect possession, a certain legal relationship between indirect possessor and a person who directly occupies.

Such an occupation opening relationship is recognized when a direct possessor approves the right to claim the return of an indirect possessor’s possession (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da61424, 61431, Feb. 23, 2012).

In accordance with the above legal principles and evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4.