1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was a personal entrepreneur conducting construction business, etc. with the trade name of “C,” and was awarded a contract for construction work of approximately KRW 2.40 million to construct a factory building of approximately 120 square meters on the ground of the land outside D, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant land”) from Defendant B on the land outside D, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant Sambu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) acquired the said construction work on September 5, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff completed the new construction of the instant factory on November 1, 2013, and the Defendant Company completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the instant factory on December 17, 2013, and the Defendant Company did not pay KRW 240,000,000 for the construction cost. The Plaintiff exercised a lien by occupying the instant factory from November 21, 2013.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers)

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants were obliged to deliver the instant plant to the Plaintiff, as the Defendants deprived of the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant plant.

A lawsuit of recovery of possession by a person who has been deprived of possession shall not be exercised if the person who has been deprived of possession loses possession.

Therefore, the Defendants deprived of the Plaintiff’s possession.

As to whether the Defendants possessed the factory of this case, it is difficult to recognize the evidence No. 7 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have the duty to deliver the instant factory as they actually occupied the instant factory and transferred the instant factory ownership in order to obstruct the Plaintiff’s exercise of rights, but it is not enough to recognize the said assertion solely on the written evidence Nos. 8 and 9.