1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is revoked.

2. The above-mentioned cancellation part.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part of “the theory of lawsuit” among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, from 13, 19, 14, and 12, from 13, 19 to 12, is dismissed as follows; and (b) with respect to a counterclaim that the defendant added at the trial of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following “decision as to a counterclaim,” it is identical to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is acceptable as it is

2. "F. In the case of Defendant B and E, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B and E lawfully occupied the above building by September 22, 2017, in order to secure the claim for each construction cost related to the instant building and the instant building, as the ownership of the instant building has been transferred to the Construction Bank N., the Plaintiff’s claim against the said Defendants was extinguished by prescription, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the representative director cannot be a legitimate secured claim. However, although the claim against the Plaintiff’s representative director cannot be a legitimate secured claim, the secured claim of the right of retention is sufficient if the claim arising from the object is a debtor’s ownership, and if the claim arising from the object is not a debtor’s ownership, the right of retention can be established against the third party’s property. Thus, even if the claim against the Plaintiff was extinguished by prescription, it is reasonable to deem that each of the above Defendants’ claim against the said Defendants constitutes a legitimate secured claim.

The claim for the construction cost against Defendant B is subject to the ten-year extinctive prescription from December 31, 2009, which became final and conclusive by the Jeonju District Court's Gunsan Branch 2009j1986 payment order, and from December 4, 2009, Defendant E's claim for the construction cost against Defendant F, the ten-year period of extinctive prescription is applied since the same Gwangju High Court's 2009Na438 decision became final and conclusive.