1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 142,590,000 won and this shall apply thereto;

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2, the plaintiff acquired ownership by being awarded a successful bid in the auction procedure and completing the registration of ownership transfer in its name on October 14, 2014. However, it can be recognized that the defendant occupies each real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver each real estate of this case to the plaintiff, the owner, unless there are special circumstances.

Dor, the Defendant asserts that the possession of each of the instant real estates is a legitimate possession based on the right of retention.

In other words, the defendant, around March 2012, concluded a contract with the non-party B who purchased the land A and the construction cost of KRW 770 million (4 stories and 25 million rooms) and completed the construction, but the construction was not paid the construction cost equivalent to approximately KRW 347 million from the above B, the defendant asserted that since the construction was completed from the end of October 2012 to the end of June 28, 2013, the plaintiff exercised the right of retention by occupying and managing each of the above real estate upon the introduction of the real estate agent C, which was commenced by the non-party 1 and the non-party D, from the end of June 28, 2013, the right of retention cannot be acknowledged to the defendant who is a legitimate possessor of the right of retention.

Therefore, in case where the debtor acquires the right of retention by transferring the possession of the construction price to the creditor for the above real estate after the seizure takes effect after the registration of compulsory auction commencement order has been completed, such as a building owned by the debtor, etc., the transfer of such possession shall be subject to seizure.