1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to have been filed.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1) since 2005 to 2009 lent KRW 100 million to D with cash and account transfer, when D is bound to secure the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff acquired the claim for the construction cost and the right of retention of the building of this case from D and has occupied the building of this case until now. However, since the defendant is disputing the existence of the plaintiff's right of retention, the plaintiff is seeking confirmation as to its existence. 2) With respect to the claim secured by the right of retention of the defendant's right of retention, it is doubtful whether D has a relation between D's claim for the construction cost of the building of this case, whether it has a relation between the construction cost and the building of this case, and whether the plaintiff has lawfully acquired the right of retention and the right of retention from D.

In relation to the possession of the right of retention, D loses possession of the building of this case before transferring possession to the Plaintiff, and the right of retention was extinguished.

Even if the requirements for the establishment of a lien have been satisfied formally.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not report the right of retention in the instant public auction procedure, that the Defendant could not know the existence of the right of retention at all due to the lack of notice on the exercise of the right of retention at the time of the public auction, and that it could not be anticipated that the Defendant was performing the construction in light of the current state of the instant building, the Plaintiff’s exercise

The lien holder shall possess the thing in custody with the care of a good manager. The plaintiff did not perform any act necessary for preserving the building of this case and made a closed price by neglecting it for a long time, so the defendant may demand the extinguishment of the lien on this ground.

For the above reasons, there is no right of retention for the plaintiff.