1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except where the court of first instance added “the 3th decision” to “4. decision” as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

[Supplementary Provisions] Following the second sentence of the first instance judgment shall be added to the following:

3. Determination as to the claim on the extinction of lien

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant extinguished the Defendant’s secured claim since the Defendant leased the instant real estate in lieu of the repayment of the secured claim from B and acquired all business rights in lieu of the repayment of the secured claim.

As seen earlier, while the Defendant leased and used the instant real estate from B to secure the claim for construction price, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that it was made in lieu of the repayment of the Defendant’s claim for construction price, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the right of retention should be extinguished in accordance with Article 327 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the Defendant leased the instant real estate from B and acquired the entire goodwill, and thus, the Defendant received considerable security from B by acquiring the right of retention. 2) Whether the security value provided pursuant to Article 327 of the Civil Act is reasonable or not should be determined by taking into account the fact that the security value as the security is considerable and reasonable as the security of the claim, and that the security value as the security in the form and form did not decrease the security value of the kept object. If the price of the kept object is excessive compared to the amount of the claim, it is sufficient to provide a security with a value equivalent to the amount of the claim, on the other hand, the obligor who