1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The underlying facts and the Plaintiff’s assertion among the grounds for this Court’s explanation regarding the instant case are the same as those stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the debtor acquired the right of retention by transferring possession to the creditor of the construction cost of the above real estate after the completion of the registration of the entry of the decision on commencing auction on the real estate, such as a building owned by the debtor in the relevant legal reasoning and the seizure became effective, the transfer of such possession goes against the prohibition of disposition of seizure under Articles 92(1) and 83(4) of the Civil Execution Act, since it constitutes an act that is likely to reduce the exchange value of the object, and thus, the possessor cannot oppose the third party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da70763 Decided January 15, 2009, etc.). B.

1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged when considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 40 and Eul evidence Nos. 3-2 and 23, it can be deemed that the plaintiff had possessed the real estate in this case prior to the occurrence of the effect of seizure, as the registration of the decision of commencement of the second auction against the plaintiff's real estate in this case was completed on Jun. 18, 2012 as the registration of the decision of commencement of auction against E, F, G, and H was completed on Nov. 19, 2012, the registration of the decision of commencement of second auction against the plaintiff's real estate in this case was completed on Nov. 19, 2012. However, at least at least at the time of the effect of seizure, it can be deemed that the plaintiff did not occupy the real estate in this case at least at the time of the effect of seizure, and thereafter, it can be recognized that the possession was restored (i.e., the presumption of continuous possession for the plaintiff (Article 198)

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence Nos. 23 and 27, is insufficient to interfere with the foregoing recognition, and there is no other counter-proof evidence.

① The Plaintiff, among the instant real property, provides Jhoho Lake, K, etc.