1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s “Defendant” under Section 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “the Plaintiff”; and (b) the Defendant’s argument in the trial of the court of first instance as “the Plaintiff,” and (c) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance as to the Defendant’s argument in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to that for supplement

2. Supplementary judgment

A. Although the Defendant’s assertion agreed to set up a collateral equivalent to 130% of the construction amount of the instant construction amount to the original Defendant, C created a collateral security amount of KRW 100,000,000, which is less than the maximum maximum debt amount of the instant construction amount of KRW 2,170,000,000, which is less than the maximum debt amount of the instant construction amount.

However, since the defendant did not consent to the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established above, the plaintiff's claim to extinguish the right of retention shall be dismissed.

B. Whether the security to be provided under Article 327 of the Civil Act is reasonable or not shall be determined by considering the fact that the value of the security is considerable as the security of the claim and does not decrease the ability of the security in the form and manner of the security. If the value of the security is excessive compared to the amount of the claim, it is sufficient to provide the security with the value of the security equivalent to the amount of the claim. If the value of the security is less than the amount of the claim, it would be equivalent to the value of the secured property if the value of the secured property is less than the amount of the claim, and on the other hand, the debtor or owner of the secured property

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da59866, Dec. 11, 2001). If a security has already been provided, the provision of such security was intended to extinguish the right of retention, but it is not necessary to determine whether it is a considerable security or not at the time of the claim for the extinguishment of the right of retention.