1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant B and D jointly provide the Plaintiff with KRW 100,000,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 4, 2009, the registration of the compulsory auction procedure was completed on June 5, 2009 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the debtor L (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and on June 4, 2009, the registration of the compulsory auction procedure was completed on June 5, 2009. Accordingly, the registration of the compulsory auction procedure was overlapped or combined with the Youngcheon District Court Youngcheon Branch E (Dus), F (Joint), G (Joint), and H (Dus) and the real estate auction procedure was underway.

(hereinafter “instant auction”). (b)

On June 28, 2011, the Plaintiff received a decision to permit the sale of the instant real estate at the instant auction, and acquired ownership in full on August 11, 201, upon receiving the decision to permit the sale of the instant real estate.

C. At the instant auction procedure around 2010, J and I reported the right of retention on the ground that they did not receive construction cost even after construction of the instant real estate-related building and civil construction works, and they were possessed from the completion of the construction to the present time.

On September 29, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with J and I for a real estate delivery order (Yancheon District Court Young-gu Branch N). In the appellate court of the instant case (Yancheon District Court 2012Ra101), the said court rendered a ruling to the effect that it is difficult to deem that J and I directly or indirectly occupied the instant real estate prior to the completion of the registration of the instant decision to commence the auction, and that J and I delivered the said real estate to the Plaintiff by dismissing the reappeal of the said decision (Supreme Court 2013Ma1195).

E. On September 2013, the Plaintiff intended to delegate and execute the above extradition order to an enforcement officer. At the time, Defendant C, the obligee for the construction cost of the instant real estate, asserted that it occupied the instant real estate as an O’s representative, and the said extradition order became impossible to execute.

In addition, Defendant B shall be free to install a trial room at the time of the instant real estate by installing a third party.