1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant adds the following judgments as to the assertion emphasized by the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant alleged that the instant building had a claim for the construction cost arising from the new construction of the instant building, and possessed the instant building from the time the new construction of the instant building was interrupted. However, since the Plaintiff was deprived of possession of the instant building by illegal means, such as property damage, around April 18, 2017 or around July 13, 2017, the Defendant has the right to possess the instant building until the said claim for construction cost is fully repaid.

B. Determination 1) A lien ceases to exist due to the loss of possession (Article 328 of the Civil Act), and even if a lien holder has lost possession due to the deprivation of possession by another person, the lien ceases to exist even if the lien had been lost, and if possession was restored upon winning judgment by filing a lawsuit for recovery of possession, the lien would not have been lost. However, even though the lien would have failed to recover possession by the aforementioned method, it is not a right of retention until it was recovered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da72189, Feb. 9, 2012). 2) As to the instant case, the health unit, and the Defendant did not occupy the instant building as of the date of the closing of argument at the trial at the trial. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the possession from the Plaintiff was deprived and claimed that it was a part of claiming the Plaintiff to recover possession against the Plaintiff.

[Maju District Court Decision 2018Gahap3209 (Dismissal of Request). Gwangju High Court 2019Na21100 (Continued Continuation). 3) As long as the defendant's possession of the building of this case, which is the requirement for establishment of lien, is not recognized, such lien does not exist. Thus, the defendant's assertion needs to be examined further as to the remainder.