1. All appeals filed by Plaintiff (Appointed Party) Company A, R and Selected S are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is.

2. On March 30, 2012, when the owner of the instant building possessed the instant construction site, the Plaintiffs were deprived of the Plaintiffs’ possession for the first time and repeated the recovery and deprivation of possession, and WW et al. on November 3, 2012, when the owner of the instant building occupied the instant construction site.

9. On the 11th of the same month, the act of deprivation of possession in this case was deprived of the plaintiffs' possession. Since the first act of deprivation of possession in W et al. was deprived of the plaintiffs' possession, the plaintiffs' possession restored is subject to protection of the right of possession recovery.

First of all, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selection L, in order to receive the payment of the subcontract price, occupied the instant loan from the owner of the instant building around March 30, 2012, upon combination of the oral arguments with respect to whether or not the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) left the zone from the owner of the instant building, the entire purport of the pleadings is as follows: (a) around February 10, 2012, A had a lock device installed at the pents and entrances of the instant construction site from February 10, 2012; (b) from March 21, 2012, A’s representative director hired AF to manage the instant construction site; and (c) one of the subcontractors, “AG’s subcontractors is exercising the right of retention; (d) he was sentenced to a fine of KRW 15,00,000,000,000 for the instant building site; and (e) he was sentenced to a fine of KRW 10,201,000.