The plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant's main claim is dismissed.

The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

Basic Facts

Defendant C, D, E, and Non-Party Network F (hereinafter referred to as “instant owner”) decided to remove Gu houses on the above land on May 2010, as indicated in the attached Table 3, and to newly construct neighborhood living facilities and multi-household houses (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”) such as attached Table 1, around May 21, 2010. On May 21, 2010, Defendant C, D, E, and L Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “M”) entered into a contract for the instant loan construction with the Non-Party M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”) as KRW 1.39,215 million in its construction cost.

On May 24, 2013, the deceased on May 24, 2013, there are Defendant G, Defendant H and I, who is the spouse.

[Ground of recognition] On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff A and Plaintiff A entered into a subcontract with M on May 31, 201 with respect to the construction cost of the interior, metal, light capacity, wood, and typ construction of the instant interior works (hereinafter “the instant interior works”). Plaintiff B entered into a subcontract with M on May 31, 201, with respect to the construction cost of KRW 380 million (excluding additional construction cost of KRW 80 million following the alteration of additional taxes and materials). Plaintiff B entered into a subcontract with M on May 31, 2010 and the instant loan facilities fire fighting works (hereinafter “instant fire fighting works”).

Plaintiff

A around July 201, the instant interior works, and Plaintiff B, around March 2012, completed each of the instant installation fire fighting works, but the Plaintiffs occupied the instant loan from the completion date of construction due to Plaintiff A’s failure to receive the remainder of the subcontract payment, excluding KRW 126 million paid by Plaintiff M and Defendant C. However, the instant building owner mobilized the service company on November 3, 2012.

9. and November 11, 200, the plaintiffs were deprived of possession by incidental doors of the instant lending and threatening the plaintiffs.

Whether or not a person who has de facto control over an object has deprived of such possession has occupied the object on the basis of his principal right.