The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed as follows:

The defendant is a corporation F.F. 64,000.

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff who cited the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance and the court of first instance are examined, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed legitimate except as follows:

Therefore, the reason why the trial of the court of first instance is based on the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following reasons. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(hereinafter the meaning of terms used in this section is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance). 2. The second part of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance.

The paragraphs (2) of this paragraph shall be filled in as follows:

“(2) According to the repayment performance judgment, the defendant has the right to attract the building of this case. In a lawsuit claiming delivery of the article, where the defendant's right of retention is cited, the defendant shall order the delivery of the article in repayment and redemption of the claim arising from the claim arising in relation to the article (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da231802, 231819, Jan. 16, 2020). On December 11, 2018, the defendant confirmed the existence of the right of retention with the claim secured on the building of this case as the secured claim. As seen earlier, the defendant has the duty to receive 64,00,000,000 won from F, and simultaneously deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff (the plaintiff's claim regarding deduction of unjust enrichment of this case as to the building of this case should return the claim amount equivalent to the unjust enrichment of this case from the owner of the right of retention.