1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached Form.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff liable to deliver the Defendant’s real estate (hereinafter “instant building”) as indicated in the Defendant’s attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) purchased the instant building in a voluntary auction procedure. The Defendant’s possession of the present building does not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries in subparagraph A and the purport of the entire pleadings.

Therefore, the defendant should deliver the building to the plaintiff who is the owner of the building of this case.

2. The defendant's right of retention defense asserts that the defendant's right of retention defense is to exercise the right of retention for the claim for construction price payment against E, because the defendant's construction work was laid down and the building was laid down at the expense of the defendant in order to operate the automobile maintenance shop D from the land in Pakistan-si.

Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on April 16, 2010 for the lease of the F and two parcels, which were located in the city of strike from the E on April 16, 2010, and completed registration of preservation of ownership in the name of E after leaving the building of this case.

However, it is difficult to trust the content of the construction contract as the payment date is not specified in the construction contract document (No. 2) and the date of completion is not specified.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the Defendant leased the land for the purpose of owning his own building, and that E is liable for the construction cost as to the building in this case only with the entries of sub-paragraphs 2 through 12.

Even if there is a claim for the construction price against the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the lien was established because there is no evidence that the claim had reached the maturity prior to the decision to commence voluntary auction on the instant building.

Therefore, the Defendant has a claim against E for the construction cost of the instant building.

The right of retention defense cannot be accepted on the premise that the claim has reached the maturity date.

3. Conclusion