1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

purport, purport, and.

1. On November 2, 2009, Plaintiff B, together with Plaintiff B, was awarded a subcontract for the printing teams and windows, irrigation facilities, and finishing works among the new construction works of each of the instant building, which was ordered by D from Lenono-Man on November 2, 2009, for KRW 350 million, among each of the new construction works of the instant building. Plaintiff B renounced a contract during the Do and acquired the contract by Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff B performed the remainder work jointly with Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted 1) since they did not receive approximately 90% of the subcontract price even after completion of subcontracted construction work, they were permanently stationed in the manager F in each of the buildings of this case, installed locking devices, and occupied each of the buildings of this case by installing banners, etc. However, since the defendant damaged locking devices such as locks on May 2013 and infringed the plaintiffs' possession, the defendant is obligated to recover possession of each of the buildings of this case to the plaintiffs. 2) When the defendant purchased each of the buildings of this case from the Oral Credit Cooperative on July 25, 2013 and delivered each of the buildings of this case to the defendant, he opened the door of each of the buildings of this case with the key, and the building of this case was in a state of secret, and there was no fact that the plaintiffs possessed each of the buildings of this case since it did not have any possession of each of the buildings of this case.

B. Determination 1) The lawsuit for the recovery of possession is to be examined solely as to whether the Plaintiff occupied the building at the time when the Plaintiff asserted that he/she was deprived of possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da61424, Oct. 23, 2012). As such, around May 2013, the Plaintiffs asserted that he/she resigned from the building of this case, the question was examined as to whether the Plaintiffs occupied the building of this case, and the evidence No. 6 (including the serial number, etc.) corresponding to the Plaintiffs’ assertion.