1. The counterclaim Defendant: 420,000,000 won to the counterclaim and 5% per annum from December 2, 2016 to December 27, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was newly built as a housing redevelopment and improvement project implemented by the District Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “SP”). As to this, the Seoul Western District Court completed the registration of ownership preservation under C’s name on December 9, 2015 as the receipt of No. 94534 on December 9, 2015. On the same day, the registration of ownership preservation was completed by the Plaintiff’s voluntary decision on commencement of auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) and the registration of transfer announcement under the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Project.

B. On March 20, 2015, the Counterclaim filed a lien on the instant auction procedure with the claim for construction price against the non-party partnership as a preserved right, as the contractor of the said rearrangement project.

C. On August 30, 2016, the counterclaim Defendant won the instant real estate at the instant auction procedure and paid the successful bid price in full.

[Ground for Recognition]: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Although the Counterclaim Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate under a legitimate lien, the Defendant was deprived of the possession of the Counterclaim Plaintiff without a legitimate title from December 1, 2016 to December 1, 2016, and thus, the Counterclaim Defendant is obliged to compensate the Counterclaim Plaintiff for damages caused by the tort of the deprivation of possession.

B. Although the counterclaim Defendant possessed the instant real estate from the date of claiming the counterclaim, the Plaintiff did not continue to possess the instant real estate from the date of claiming the counterclaim, and the existence and the amount of the right to preserve the instant real estate claimed by the counterclaim is not acknowledged, and thus, the counterclaim cannot be deemed a legitimate lien holder.

Even if the right of retention of the opposing plaintiff is recognized, the negligence of the opposing plaintiff who contributed to the loss caused by the deprivation of possession by the opposing defendant should be considered.

3. Determination

A. The facts of recognition (1) of this case