1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied a building that was newly built through the construction of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”); (b) subcontracted the instant construction work to the Defendant for KRW 324,50,000 during the said construction (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”); and (c) on January 31, 2018, the construction price of the instant construction work was increased to KRW 390,50,000 between the Defendant and the Defendant.

B. The Defendant completed the instant construction on March 10, 2018, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 312,500,000 out of the construction price to the Defendant from October 2, 2017 to April 25, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, 13-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion completed the instant construction on March 10, 2018 and left the construction site. From April 25, 2018 to May 1, 2018, the Defendant attached a banner called “in the course of exercising a lien” on the first floor of the instant building, and obstructed the progress of construction by blocking the entrance.

However, the Defendant’s claim for the construction cost of this case was not due, and the Defendant does not fall under a person who occupies the building of this case, since he left the construction site on March 10, 2018. The Defendant’s construction part is a branch of the building of this case, but excluded the Plaintiff’s possession as to the first floor that the Plaintiff did not perform its construction work and went against it unlawfully and unlawfully. Thus, the Defendant cannot exercise a lien on the building of this case.

Although the Plaintiff deemed the Defendant’s illegal occupation continued from April 25, 2018 to May 1, 2018, the Defendant contests it. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the Defendant’s lien on the instant building does not exist.

3. As the Defendant did not occupy the building of this case any more, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and the Defendant asserted that the lawsuit of this case is lawful.