1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. 1) As to August 16, 2012, C: (a) International Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (former trade name: International Trust Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “International Trust”)

() In the future, the registration of transfer of ownership based on trust was completed. On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased 201 units from an international trust during the public sale process, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale (Disposal of Trust Property) on May 19, 2014. (2) The Defendant completed the move-in report as of January 24, 201, and currently occupied 201 units.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Defendant, the possessor of 201, is obligated to deliver subparagraph 201 to the Plaintiff, the owner, unless there is a legitimate right to possess.

2. As to the defendant's right of retention defense

A. 1) The Defendant: (a) received and completed the construction of the entire new construction of multi-household housing with 201 from C; (b) the Defendant was in possession of 250,808,800 won due to the failure to receive construction cost; and (c) the Defendant has the right to attract 201 until receiving the said money. (d) The Defendant began to possess 201 from September 2012, which was after the acquisition of ownership by international trust; and (e) even when the point at which possession was commenced at the time of completion of the building, according to the performance note prepared on May 9, 2012 by the Defendant and C, the Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost after 60 days from the date of completion of the building; (b) as such, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the construction cost has not arrived at the time of completion of the building, and thus,

Even if the right of retention was established on February 22, 2013, the Defendant leased No. 201 to co-defendant B of the first instance trial without obtaining the consent of an international trust which is the owner on February 22, 2013, which constitutes an act of disposal exceeding the use necessary for preservation as the lien holder, which constitutes a ground for extinguishment of the right of retention.