1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 7, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, may be admitted by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

As between May 30, 2015 and C, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the term of lease up to May 25, 2016 with respect to 9m x 3m-sized one container (hereinafter “instant container”), etc. with respect to May 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant container”). The Plaintiff has been running a business to sell string films, etc. on the instant container.

B. On May 31, 2016, the Defendant purchased at KRW 3,000,00,000, three containers installed in Yong-gu, Young-gu, G including the instant container from C.

C. On the other hand, on July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition seeking a change in the name of the owner of a temporary building with respect to three containers installed in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, including the instant container. However, the Plaintiff received a reply from the Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu to the effect that “where the owner of an existing temporary structure files a request for cancellation of the owner of the temporary structure and the written consent of the owner of the land, the title can be changed if the building report is submitted along with the relevant documents, such as the written consent of the owner of the land, and the name may not be changed as the document submitted

Since then, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff occupied the instant container owned by the Defendant without permission, and filed an application for provisional seizure of corporeal movables with the claim of the Suwon District Court 2016Kadan664, Nov. 14, 2016, which was “3,916,000 won for damages claim or unjust enrichment return claim” with the Suwon District Court 2016Kadan664, and received a decision on provisional seizure of corporeal movables, which cited the above claim from the above court on December 5, 2016, and on December 13, 2016, the execution of provisional seizure against the computers, TV, air conditioners, air conditioners, and vehicle-rating films owned by the Plaintiff in the instant container via E by the enforcement officer on December 13, 2016.”