1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In the construction of a new E-building in the prime city, the Plaintiff constructed the construction under a subcontract for the construction of a new E-building, and the Defendants constructed the fire-fighting systems under a subcontract, but they did not receive part of the subcontract price from the prime contractor.

B. G and H purchased each of the 1/2 shares of the E Building I in the auction process at the discretion of the original district court of Chuncheon on January 17, 2020.

At that time, the Defendants received 130 million won as the subrogation of the secured claim of the lien from G and H on the premise that they are the legitimate lien holders of the E building I, and delivered the E building I to G and H the buyer.

[Grounds for recognition] The written evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion E building I is the Plaintiff’s sole lien holder, and the Defendants deceiving the buyer as if they were the legitimate lien holder, and received 130 million won from the buyer as the repayment for the secured claim under the lien, and then handed over the E building I to the buyer.

This constitutes tort that infringes upon the Plaintiff’s lien or an internal delegation relationship with the Plaintiff, and thus constitutes nonperformance of obligations or unjust enrichment, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay 130 million won and delayed damages to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 5 and No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s evidence, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have been discharged from May 23, 2018 to February 2, 2019 and occupied part of the E building by staying in the E building. However, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have not occupied the E unit directly after his/her retirement from office on February 2019.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff indirectly occupied the E building I via the Defendants’ intermediary, but only the description of the evidence No. 2-3 (Written Waiver of Right of Retention) is written.