1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The grounds of appeal by the Defendant cited the judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable in finding the facts of the first instance and determining, even if the evidence presented in the court of first instance is different from the evidence presented in the court of first instance and the evidence presented in the court of first instance were presented in the court of first instance, to the effect that the Defendant has a claim for the construction cost regarding the building of this case, and that the lien should be recognized in occupying the building of this case from the end of October

From the end of October 2009 to October 13, 2014, G, the former representative director of the Defendant, H from the following day to April 15, 2016, and H, the representative of the Defendant from the next day to February 28, 2017, the Defendant alleged that D, the Defendant’s possession assistant, occupied the instant building. However, in G, there is no evidence to prove the possession of the instant building. However, in the case of G, there is no evidence to prove the possession of the instant building, and H stated to the effect that “I is a house construction employee, and is permanently stationed in 102 Dong 202,” the testimony of the first instance witness alone is insufficient to recognize that H occupied the instant building as an assistant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, at the time of execution of the case of provisional disposition against the plaintiff's possession of real estate against the defendant's comprehensive construction, D did not state that "it occupies the building of this case as the defendant's possession assistant." The execution protocol was rather signed as "the employee of the building of this case." Even though it was prepared by the lien service contract between the defendant and the execution officer, it is hard to understand that D did not clearly state that it occupied the building of this case for the defendant, and unlike others, D occupied the building of this case as the defendant's possession assistant.