1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2003, the Plaintiff (formerly, LG Construction Co., Ltd.) entered into a contract for new construction of D apartment units with the BC apartment house reconstruction and improvement project association and completed the construction work around July 2007.

B. However, on November 10, 2010, the Plaintiff posted a notice on November 10, 2010, stating that the entrance door of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) was locked and kept the key thereof, while exercising the right of retention on the apartment entrance in order to secure the above claim for the construction price, as a part of the construction price was not paid by the said association.

C. On November 28, 2010, the Defendant removed a public notice on the right to retention, which was attached to the entrance of the apartment of this case, and then damaged the locking device and occupied it until now.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 5 and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. In the case of claiming that a person was deprived of possession in accordance with Article 204(1) of the Civil Act and claiming the recovery of possession, the examination is conducted only by examining whether the person requesting the possession was possessed at the time of claiming that the person was deprived of possession, and the existence of the right of retention does not affect the legitimacy of the claim for recovery of possession.

Here, possession refers to the objective relationship that is deemed to be a factual control of a person under the social norms, and to have a de facto control, it is not necessarily a mere physical or practical control over an object, but should be judged in conformity with the social concept in consideration of the time, space and principal relationship with the object, possibility of exclusion from control of another person, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da18294 Decided July 15, 2010, etc.). B.

As seen earlier, the judgment on the Plaintiff’s occupation and the Defendant’s deprivation of occupation.