1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 2, 3, and 1, each point is indicated in the separate sheet 1, 2, 3, 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff is the owner of each land, etc. listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) awarded a successful bid in a voluntary auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. The Defendant is a person who possesses the portion of the land, holding a factory building (hereinafter collectively referred to as each of the instant factories) on the ground of 53 square meters connected in order to each point of (i) part of 8 square meters and of 2,3,4,5,6, and 2 of the same drawings, among the real estate listed in the attached list 1, 2, listed in the attached Table 1 list of real estate, connected each point of (ii) part of 397 square meters in the ship, and of 7,8,9,10, and 7 of the attached drawings among the real estate listed in the attached list 2, 3, listed in the attached Table 1 list, 3,00 square meters in order to connect each point of (iii) part of 344 square meters in the ship and 9,10,11,12, and 9 of the same drawings.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including both the paper numbers), the result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove each of the instant factory buildings to the Plaintiff, the landowner, and deliver the site to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserted that the right of retention is not possible to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the right of retention on the site portion of each factory building of this case as the secured claim for the construction cost of each factory of this case, after being awarded a contract for the site creation work by C which was the former owner of each factory of this case, and completed around July 2015.

However, there are claims secured, such as the defendant's assertion.

However, as pointed out by the Plaintiff, the period of extinctive prescription of Article 163 subparagraph 3-3 of the Civil Code has expired as long as the said secured claim has already been expired.

(c).