1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Attached Form 1 of the judgment of the first instance.

1. Pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance shall be cited as

However, as follows, the Defendants added the judgment as to the allegations made in this Court.

2. Additional determination

A. Determination as to the claim of lien on the instant building 1) A’s assertion that the Defendants owned the instant building and possessed each of the instant lands, but, apart from the fact that it may be evaluated as unjust enrichment, the Defendants cannot be deemed as a tort requiring intentional or negligent act. Thus, the Defendants may oppose the Plaintiff’s request for eviction as a lien on the instant building. 2) Even in a case where the owner of land is able to demand the removal of the relevant building and delivery of the relevant site to the owner of the said building because the building did not have the right to use the land for its existence, if a person other than the owner of the said building occupies the building, he/she may not implement the removal of the said building unless he/she removes the possession of the said building.

Therefore, the land ownership is deemed to be hindered in the smooth realization of the land by the above possession. Therefore, the land owner may request the possessor of the building to withdraw from the building as the exclusion of interference based on his own ownership.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43801, Aug. 19, 2010). Even if a right of retention exists for a building occupant, if the existence and possession of the building constitute a tort against the landowner, the said right of retention cannot be set up against the landowner.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3073, Feb. 14, 1989). “Cheating” in this context includes not only the cases meeting the requirements for tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, but also the cases where a building owner occupies the site without legal title.