1. The part concerning the claim for extradition among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay 37,699,200 won to the plaintiff.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff on the contract amounting to KRW 34,272,00 (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period from June 20, 2019 to July 10, 2019, with respect to the bathing rooms and toilets construction works for the four houses above the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to complete the instant construction work in accordance with the instant contract, and the Defendant prepared and ordered the Plaintiff to complete the instant construction work price by September 20, 2019, but did not pay KRW 37,69,200 (including value-added tax) for the instant construction cost so far.

[Evidence Evidence: Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole video and oral pleadings]

2. Determination

A. As to the claim for extradition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant seeks to deliver the above real estate under the lien on the real estate (building) listed in the separate sheet constructed on the land of this case.

However, since the plaintiff does not specify real estate subject to the request for extradition as its location, area, structure, and use, the lawsuit against the above request for extradition is unlawful.

(B) As to the legitimacy of the claim for extradition, the right of retention asserted by the Plaintiff is only capable of continuously occupying the object until the claims arising from close relation with the object are repaid, and it does not seem that the Plaintiff had the right to request the Defendant to deliver the building on the land of this case.

According to the above facts as to the claim for construction cost, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 37,69,200 under the contract of this case.

3. As such, the part concerning the request for extradition among the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.