1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. From the early February 2014 to August 7, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that (a) from the early February 2014 to the early February 2014, the construction of a Do forest (hereinafter referred to as the “Do forest construction”) was awarded a subcontract for civil engineering works among the construction sites in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu, the Plaintiff carried out the civil engineering works by inserting heavy equipment (e.g., Docles and dump trucks) (the testimony of some witnesses) (the witness’s testimony) and the construction cost that the Plaintiff had not received from the Do forest construction is total of 65,839,125 won.

[A] 2. The plaintiff's assertion of claiming damages against the defendants in this case is as follows.

The Plaintiff, from September 1, 2014, occupied the said construction site and exercised a lien in order to receive the said claim for the construction cost.

However, in order to prevent the Plaintiff from exercising the Plaintiff’s right of retention, the Defendants conspired to act on January 5, 2016, with the aim of hindering and preventing the Plaintiff from exercising the Plaintiff’s right of retention. On January 5, 2016, the Defendants moved or disposed of two containers owned and used by the Plaintiff on the new wall (office-use and restaurant), office fixtures and kitchen supplies inside the container to another place without permission, thereby causing the Plaintiff to lose the right of retention and thereby preventing the Plaintiff from receiving the claim for the construction cost.

3. In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, it is recognized that one container containing the plaintiff's trade name and contact information, the phrase "in the course of exercising the right of retention" was installed at one of the construction sites of this case (Provided, That it is not owned by the plaintiff), and the fact that the defendant's employees were provided out of the new wall to hear equipment inside the container on January 5, 2016.

However, on the other hand, the construction site of this case seems to have been in the state of site until January 5, 2016, and there was a special limitation on access by other people, including the defendants.