1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. According to the judgment on the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove structures and containers installed on the land of the instant forest owned by the Plaintiff and deliver the said forest land to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion (right of possession based on the right of retention)

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) Before Defendant E’s act of deprivation of occupation, the Defendant exercised a legitimate lien on the forest of this case, and recovered possession upon E’s voluntary return even after E’s act of deprivation of occupation. Ultimately, the Defendant has a legitimate right to occupy the forest of this case based on a lien. 2) The Defendant and the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

(B) As of June 30, 2016, the security service contract for the instant forest concluded between the Plaintiff was terminated on September 2012, 2012, which was four (4) years prior to the successful bid, and the Defendant did not have any management of the instant forest. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant forest and deliver the instant forest since the Plaintiff’s representative director was already disqualified before hindering the Defendant’s exercise of the right of retention. (B) At the time of June 30, 2016, the Defendant installed structures and containers, etc. which the Plaintiff occupied and managed the instant forest without permission, which were illegally assembled into the instant forest and constructed with stone and hack pipe for the purpose of exercising the right of retention. After the period when the Plaintiff was occupied and managed, even if the Defendant installed structures, etc. without permission, this is unlawful, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant occupied the instant forest and land through this.

C) Claim secured by the right of retention exercised by the Defendant is G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).