1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. All the claims of the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor are made.

1. The corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance of basic facts is the same;

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act: Provided, That the defendant B shall be referred to as "B") 2. The assertion and judgment are made.

A. According to Articles 10 and 11, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, who participated in the auction procedure for the Plaintiff’s co-ownership of 101, the instant real estate, and received a decision to permit sale, and paid the sale price on January 2, 2015.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to deliver it to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff who seeks the delivery of 101 as co-owners.

(The plaintiff lost his share in 101, and thus the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted). (B)

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he refuses delivery by exercising the right of retention.

According to B 3, 7-3, 9, 11 and witness L, the following facts may be recognized:

The comprehensive construction company of Cho Ho-ho was awarded a contract for a new construction from the building owner of the apartment in this case, and the construction cost was replaced by the sale price of the apartment in 101, 601, and 602, but it was determined that it can be sold in advance.

The Defendant was awarded a subcontract for reinforced concrete construction among the instant apartment construction works from Cho Ho Construction Co., Ltd., and was paid 602 won in lieu of the subcontract price of KRW 45.1 million.

The defendant is seeking to transfer the ownership registration of 602 from the building owner, and therefore, the creditors of the construction company of the construction company of the construction company were already ordered to order seizure and provisional seizure as to the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the building owner.

The defendant thought that some of the construction cost can be recovered by the transfer of 602, and the seizure or provisional seizure has been paid directly to the creditor of the seizure or provisional seizure or set up the right to collateral security instead of the seizure or provisional seizure order.

Even to the plaintiff who was an execution creditor, the right to collateral security against 602 under the condition of rescission of seizure order.