1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and C (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendant et al.”) borrowed the name from the Sdo Integrated Construction Co., Ltd., and ordered the construction of a new building on the ground of 545 square meters in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) (owner E), and the Defendant et al. subcontracted the Plaintiff the construction of the Donstles (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

[The main contents of the contract for construction work A] The name of construction unit: The contract amount for construction work from February 15, 2005 to February 23, 2005: 21,50,000 to February 23, 2005: 21,880,000 won in total, and the separate completed portion of value-added tax: Article 15 of the contract terms for construction work to be paid at the time of the completion of the contract after the completion of the contract: the contractor may adjust the construction site after passing a completion inspection and request the contractor to pay the construction cost, and the contractor shall pay the construction cost simultaneously with the delivery of the contract object unless otherwise stipulated.

A contractor: Sejong Comprehensive Construction Company, contractor: The plaintiff

B. The new construction of the instant building was completed on June 7, 2005 and was approved for use on or around June 7, 2005, and the registration of ownership preservation E was completed on June 10, 2005.

Around June 4, 2005, E and the Defendant, etc. entered into an agreement with the Defendant, etc. that E shall directly pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 1,135,804,000 to the instant building including value-added tax, and the Defendant, etc. shall exercise the right of retention for 11 households including subparagraphs 302 and 402 of the instant building in order to secure the said claim (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Since June 7, 2005, the Defendant et al. attached a public notice stating that the construction cost was not paid from the owner of the building of this case from June 7, 2005, and that the lien was exercised from June 7, 2005, and began to possess the building of this case.

C. E around December 2005, Nos. 302 and 402 of the instant building to Defendant etc.