1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Defendant, while residing in the instant real estate until August 24, 2016, was a director, filed a lien even after the director took place, and is still in possession of the instant real estate until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) The plaintiff's defendant occupies the real estate of this case without a legitimate title.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by August 24, 2016, from which the Defendant removed.

Luxembourg Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was the subject of the request of C, the former owner of the instant real estate, and the test work was conducted on the instant real estate.

However, C is unable to pay the construction cost, and C exercises a lien and occupies the real estate in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's possession is legitimate as it is based on the right of retention, so it cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. The Plaintiff seeking the delivery of the instant real estate on the premise that he/she is the owner of the instant real estate.

However, on November 2, 2017, the fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer to Nonparty D Housing Redevelopment Project Association on the instant real estate on November 2, 2017, is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have the title to seek the delivery of the instant real estate against the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part cannot be accepted.

C. (i) The Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the possession of the instant real estate against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the possession thereof.