1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From the voluntary auction procedure applied by a credit union in South-gu, a mortgagee of a right to collateral security (D Voluntary Ruling to Commence auction), Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale of real estate listed in the separate sheet on October 8, 2015 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) due to voluntary auction.

B. Defendant B filed an application against Party B for an order of delivery of the instant real estate with F, and this court rendered on November 9, 2015, the order of delivery of the instant real estate to the applicant (Defendant B) for the real estate (hereinafter “instant order of delivery”).

Defendant B executed an order to deliver the instant real estate through an execution officer on December 24, 2015, and cancelled the possession of E on the instant real estate, and received the instant real estate from the execution officer.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 5 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, based on the construction cost claim concerning the new construction of the G-based building in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu G, Incheon, which was ordered by the Daeiro (hereinafter “Mairo”) (hereinafter “Mairo Construction”), the Plaintiff exercised a lien by occupying the instant real estate immediately after the completion of the new construction work.

On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff was transferred the claim for the construction cost of negotrak from nein Construction to ne and was transferred to the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant real estate. This is known to the Plaintiff on January 19, 2015.

The Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate and allowed E to use part of the space of the instant real estate.

At the time of the execution of the extradition order of this case, the Plaintiff occupied the real estate of this case, but due to the erroneous execution of the extradition order of this case against E.