1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is the same as the part of “1. Basic Facts” from Part 5 to No. 4, 6 of the first instance judgment, except for the cases where the court has completed or added a part as follows. As such, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] Part II of the first instance judgment "1,00,000 won" shall be added to "1,00,000 won" in Part II of the second instance judgment.

"A evidence No. 17" shall be added to "No. 17" in Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Determination

A. In a passive lawsuit seeking confirmation of relevant legal principles, if the Plaintiff first specified the claim in order to deny the fact of the cause of the obligation, the Defendant, the obligee, bears the burden of proving the fact of the requisite of legal relationship. As such, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a right, the Defendant, who claimed the right of retention, shall assert and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409 Decided March 10, 2016, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da84971 Decided January 29, 2015, etc.). Meanwhile, possession of an object subject to the establishment of a right of retention under the Civil Act refers to an objective relationship that appears to fall under a person’s factual control under the generally accepted social norms, and thus, it does not necessarily mean a physical and practical control over an object, but ought to be determined in conformity with the social concept by taking into account the time between the object and the object, spatial relationship and principal right relationship, and the possibility of excluding other person’s control, etc. However, in order to have an objective relationship that falls under such factual control, at least the other person’s interference should be excluded.

(See Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1602 Dated March 27, 2008, etc.). B.

Judgment

1. Around October 2014, the Defendant supplied and completed the instant civil works and new construction works by C, but was not paid KRW 291,00,000 among the construction cost. Around October 2016, the Defendant did not receive KRW 291,00,000 from among the construction cost.