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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant, at the end of I, proposed to pay the construction cost that the Defendant did not have claimed, deprived of his right of possession by granting possession of the instant real estate, and expected to recover it by filing a lawsuit for recovery of possession. Thus, it should be recognized that the Defendant’s lien exists.

B. Determination 1) Since the possessor’s deprivation of possession does not go against his own will and loses possession. If the possessor arbitrarily transferred possession, it cannot be deemed a deprivation of possession, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da17443, Feb. 28, 1992; 2009Da35552, Nov. 26, 2009). In addition, even if the possession was deprived of possession, as long as the lien holder lost possession of real estate due to that reason, the right of retention was extinguished, and as such, if the possessor was to recover possession upon winning judgment after filing a lawsuit for recovery of possession, the right of retention would not have been lost if it was restored, but it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s right of retention was deprived of possession until it was recovered by the aforementioned method (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da27819, Feb. 27, 2019).

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.