The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant deprived of possession of the apartment of this case, which is the lien holder, and that the Defendant, pursuant to Article 204(1) of the Civil Act, sought to deliver the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff at the time of the termination of possession of B, which is the direct occupant, and the Defendant asserted that the primary claim for delivery of this case is unlawful.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense on the merits on the ground that the Defendant’s primary claim for delivery of the instant apartment was based on the premise that the Defendant’s direct possession was specified at the time of restoring possession of the instant apartment, and that it was necessary to file a prior claim.

However, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant restores the direct possession of the apartment of this case at the time of the termination of possession B, and thus, the future performance lawsuit, such as the claim for the main delivery, is not allowed.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the lawsuit for future performance, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.