1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

2. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant to newly construct a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) in the construction cost of KRW 275,00,000,000 (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the said construction according to the following: (a) the construction contract was concluded; (b) the construction cost was increased to KRW 321,530,000.

B. As the Plaintiff did not receive the above construction cost from the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the payment of the construction cost against this Court 2013Gahap8656, and the Defendant asserted that the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost should be deducted from the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost, as the Plaintiff constructed differently from the design drawing, and thus, the amount equivalent to the defect repair cost should be deducted. However, such assertion was rejected on the ground that there is no proof, and on September 17, 2014, the judgment was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost, 282,843

(C) The Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim for construction cost”).

The defendant appealed against the above judgment (Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na52799), and the defendant's application for defect appraisal has been adopted in the appellate court, and the lawsuit is still pending.

On the other hand, from August 2013, the Plaintiff attached the phrase “in the course of exercising the right of retention” to the outer wall, entrance, glass hold, etc. of the instant building with the claim for the construction cost of the instant case as the preserved claim. The entrance was corrected, and the Plaintiff’s employees installed one container on the side of the instant building, and exercised the right of retention by visiting the instant building two to three times a week. On the other hand, around November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff began to occupy the instant building after opening the instant building that the Defendant corrected and brought about the Defendant’s house.

E. On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff’s right to recover possession against the Defendant and the Defendant’s representative director B.