1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant and the Co-Defendant B, C, D, E, and F of the first instance trial against the Defendant and the Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial, and against the Defendant, C, D, E, and F of the first instance trial, for the damages equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 3 million per month from June 1, 2015 to the delivery date of the building, and from June 1, 2015 to the delivery date of the building. The first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the claim against the Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial and the claim against the Co-Defendant C, D, E, and F of the first instance trial.

On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff did not appeal and appealed only the Defendant and the Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial. On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff withdrawn the claim for damages against the Defendant and Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial.

Therefore, the scope of the trial of the party shall be limited to the plaintiff's request for delivery of 102 building of this case against the defendant.

2. Examining the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 1 as to the cause of the claim in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff purchased 102 building of this case from the Korea Asset Management Corporation by public auction and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 24, 2014. The Defendant may recognize as a construction company the fact that the Plaintiff occupies 102 building of this case through co-defendant B, C, D, E, and F, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver 102 building of this case to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The defendant asserts that the right of retention is legitimate in possession of the above 102 subparagraph 102 as the secured claim for the construction price of the building of this case, with the possession of 102 building of this case as the secured claim.

In addition to the statement No. 3, the defendant around May 6, 2003.