All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants recognizes all of the facts constituting the facts charged.

However, the defendants open the correct entrance of the first floor of the E-building and up to the fifth floor up to the fifth floor, the reasons why the defendants are operating companies with the claim for construction cost to be settled against the F Co., Ltd., the owner of the building. In relation to the claim, even though the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the voluntary auction procedure for the above building filed by occupying the above building under the lien, the above auction procedure was invalidated as the trustee's claim for cancellation such as transfer of ownership was accepted in the lawsuit filed against the buyer, etc., and accordingly, the above auction procedure was invalidated as the right of retention for the above building by the defendants, etc., the creditor company, etc., returned to the status of the above voluntary auction transfer, and thus, the above procedure should be again exercised by publicly announcing the right of retention for the above building.

Therefore, even though the defendants caused the infringement on the above building, it was a legitimate measure to exercise the legally recovered lien, and in light of such circumstances, the illegality is excluded as it constitutes a legitimate act.

2. The grounds of appeal by the Defendants are on the part of the Defendants Company to acquire and exercise the right of retention for the said building, and on the premise that the Defendants had the right of retention at the time of the instant case. We examine whether the creditors participating in the said new building construction, including the companies operated by the Defendants, continue to have the right of retention for the said building.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and, in particular, Seoul Northern District Court Decision 201Gahap3323 decided December 14, 201, and the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2012Na6792 decided September 27, 2012, and Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2011Gahap2467 decided September 27, 201.