1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows each description or image of evidence No. 20 through No. 27 (including the number of pages) submitted in the court of first instance.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. On December 13, 2016, the Plaintiff asserts that, on the other hand, on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff withdrawn the claim of the existing lien on the instant scrap and collecting machinery after November 30, 2016, by sending to the Defendants a certificate of the content that the goods placed on the instant case, including the instant scrap and collecting machinery, should be collected.

In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s statement in the preparatory brief dated November 30, 2017 from the first instance court to the 1st instance court, alleged that it was a legitimate exercise of the Plaintiff’s right of retention, and maintained the claim regarding the above right of retention even when it was in the first instance court. Thus, the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the right of retention cannot be deemed to have been made after November 30, 2016 only on the basis of the descriptions in the evidence No. 22-1 and No. 2-2-1.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all appeals filed against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the "paragraph 2" in the judgment of the court of first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error.