1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff (appointed party, hereinafter "the plaintiff") in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to the evidence submitted in this court.

Therefore, the judgment of this court is based on the first instance judgment.

Sub-paragraph 1 of Paragraph 1, the phrase " November 29, 1995" as " December 29, 1995," and the sub-paragraph 1

B. Paragraph 4 Item 3 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in Paragraph 2 as to the assertion that the plaintiff is disputing by adding or emphasizing the above in this court.

2. Additional determination

A. On October 16, 2007, eight parties, including the Plaintiff, etc., completed a provisional disposition registration with respect to the portion of 1/2 of the instant land on October 16, 2007, the Defendant Company discontinued construction with respect to the said portion of the instant land, and the said construction was conducted only for the GE and AF land from the instant land

Therefore, the defendant company's claim for construction cost does not coincide with the remaining land except the above AE and AF land, and there is no lien on the remaining land.

B. 1) Article 320(1) of the Civil Act provides, “A person who possesses another’s goods or securities shall have the right to retain the goods or securities until the time when the claim arising from the said goods or securities becomes due and due,” and in this context, the term “claim arising in respect of the goods” means a case where a claim arises from the property itself or where a claim arises from the same legal relation or fact that is identical to the right to claim the return of the object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16942, Sept. 7, 2007).