The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 320(1) of the Civil Act provides, “A person who has possession of another person’s property or securities shall have the right to retain such property or securities until repayment is made where the claim arising with respect to such property or securities is due.”

Here, “claim arising in relation to the thing” includes not only cases where a claim is incurred from the thing itself, but also cases where the claim is generated from the legal relationship or factual relations identical to the right to claim the return of the thing, unless it is contrary to the principle of fairness, which is the original purpose

Meanwhile, Article 321 of the Civil Act provides, “The lien holder may exercise his/her right to all the thing in custody until he/she has received the full repayment of the claim.” As such, the thing in custody covers each part of the secured claim as a whole, and such indivisible right of retention applies even where it is possible to divide the subject matter or several things (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16942, Sept. 7, 2007).

After finding the facts as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendants were liable to deliver 201 units of GGra (hereinafter “instant section for exclusive use”) among GGra (hereinafter “instant loan”) as indicated in its holding to the Plaintiff and to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

Then, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ defense on the ground that the Defendants’ right to demand reimbursement of expenses incurred in performing delegated affairs against J is merely a claim arising from the rooftop and underground construction of the instant loan and thus cannot be deemed a claim arising with respect to the instant section of exclusive ownership.