The cases where the establishment of the right of retention is recognized even if the claim in connection with the goods has been acquired after the possession of such goods takes place;

Even if the lien holder has acquired the possession of the article or the article or the article or the right of retention, which was incurred before the lien holder occupies the article or the right of retention is established.

Article 320 (1) of the Civil Act

Park Yong-hee

The highest salary class.

Daegu District Court Decision 64Na220 delivered on December 3, 1964

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

As to the ground of appeal 2 by the defendant-appellant

According to the explanation of the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the original judgment, even though non-party 4 claims on the construction cost of the building in this case, such claims cannot be deemed to be claims arising from the building in this case as the defendant's own assertion that the above profit tin cannot be deemed to be claims arising from the building in this case, and therefore, it is necessary to reject the defendant's defense of the right of retention and determine that the above claims are related to the possession of the goods as the requirement for establishing the right of retention. However, the establishment of the right of retention under the current law is sufficient and sufficient if the creditor's claims are related to the goods and the goods which are the object of the right of retention, and even if the creditor acquires possession of the goods after the claim occurred in relation to the goods before the possession of the goods, the original judgment which judged that the possession of the goods requires the protection by the right of retention is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on the establishment of the right of retention, and the appeal on this point is reasonable,

Therefore, according to Articles 400 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)