1. It is confirmed that there is no lien on real estate listed in the defendant's attached list.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 27, 2016, D concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant setting the construction amount as KRW 8,376,50,000 (including value-added tax) with respect to the construction of complex buildings on the ground (hereinafter “instant construction”) on the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from D, and succeeded to the status of the contractor under the instant contract on July 25, 2016.

C. After the commencement of the instant construction work, the Defendant asserted the unpaid construction cost and suspended the construction work, and thereafter, occupied the instant land and claimed a lien.

On July 15, 2016 and October 27, 2016, the Defendant submitted to the E Association a letter of waiver of lien to the effect that the Plaintiff would not exercise the right of retention on the instant land in relation to the instant construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Where a contractor who built a new building of the relevant legal doctrine occupies the building and claims for the construction cost arising from the building, the contractor has the right to retain the building until he/she is paid his/her claims. However, where a contractor who was awarded a contract for the new building installed a structure that cannot be viewed as an independent building under the generally accepted social norms and the construction has been interrupted on the land, the fixtures are merely attached to the land and thus are not able to exercise a lien on such fixtures. In addition, the claim for the construction cost arising until the discontinuance of construction is not generated on the land, and thus, the contractor

Supreme Court Decision 200