1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiff's defendants added to the trial room.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff requested the Seoul Southern District Court to issue a payment order against D to the effect that “D shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 406,000,000 and damages for delay therefrom” (2012 tea6515). The above payment order was finalized around that time.

B. On October 15, 2013, in Seoul Southern District Court E Real Estate Auction case, the Defendants awarded a successful bid for real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by D on October 15, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants.

C. The Defendants filed an application against the Plaintiff for a real estate delivery order with the Seoul Southern District Court C on January 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant delivery order”). On March 20, 2014, the said court enforcement officer revoked the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant real estate, and completed the execution of the delivery of real estate by delivering it to F by the Defendants’ agent.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on September 4, 2014, asserting that “The Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate with the claim for construction cost under the construction contract of the instant real estate as the secured claim, and exercised the right of retention, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate as it went against the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant real estate by executing delivery in accordance with the delivery order of the instant case unfairly issued (Seoul Southern District Court 2014Gahap2328).” The said court did not prove that there was any illegality in the issuance order of the instant real estate itself or in the process of its delivery execution based thereon, and the Plaintiff lost possession of the instant real estate by lawful compulsory execution.