1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that changed in exchange at this court.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to have been filed.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of 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 on the main claim

A. The part concerning the claim for consolation money due to the unlawful exercise of lien and unfair provisional seizure of the parties (A) The Plaintiff’s respective claim for the construction payment against the Plaintiff by the Defendants against the Plaintiff is a summary of the Plaintiff’s respective claim for the construction payment, the payment period of which is newly constructed for the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant loan”) does not exceed one month from October 30, 2015 to November 30, 2015.

Nevertheless, around November 9, 2015, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ respective claims for the construction cost of the Defendants as preserved bonds shall exercise their right of retention on the instant loan, and thereby interfered with the Plaintiff’s sale of the loan by illegally occupying the said loan.

In addition, the Defendants gathered the name of the non-party company that leased a comprehensive construction business license to the Plaintiff and pretended that the non-party company has a claim for the construction cost against the Plaintiff. In so doing, the Defendants unduly provisionally seized the amount of the claim (the claim amount) against the non-party company as the obligee regarding the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the non-party company's six-generation mobile households in the loan of this case against the non-real estate trust company of this case.

The plaintiff suffered losses of KRW 208,241,582 in total due to the decline in the sale price and the delay in the sale price due to the illegal exercise of lien and unfair provisional seizure by the defendants. Considering the above, the plaintiff shall jointly claim payment of KRW 70 million to the defendants for consolation money.

B. The Defendants’ exercise of the Defendants’ right of retention against Defendant Ba is in the situation where the Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost at the time.