1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts written by the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Section 3 of the attached Form 3 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be written in accordance with the attached Form 2 of the decision of the court of first instance.

On the 6th 10th 10th 10th 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “only the images of each of the evidence(s) submitted by the Defendant” shall be written with “each of the descriptions or images of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of pages)”.

From 7, 16th to 21th of the judgment shall be followed as follows.

“(1) The Defendant asserts to the effect that, in the course of executing removal of each of the instant buildings on January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff removed the banner installed on the front side of one of the instant buildings, and thereby, the Defendant lost possession of each of the instant lands. As such, the Defendant’s seeking confirmation that the Plaintiff, who caused the Defendant’s loss of possession of each of the instant lands, did not have a right of retention, cannot be permitted contrary to the good faith principle.

First of all, there is no evidence to support the fact that a banner installed by the defendant on the front side of the building of this case at the time of removal and execution of each of the buildings of this case had been removed in the process of the above removal and execution.

Even if the banner was removed in the process of removal execution as alleged by the Defendant, as long as it is difficult to deem that only the Defendant posted the banner on the front side of one of the buildings of this case as possessing possession of each of the buildings of this case, it cannot be deemed that the banner was removed, and thus, the Defendant lost possession of each of the buildings of this case.

On a different premise, the defendant's status is the first defendant.