1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 23, 2013, a voluntary auction was initiated with the Suwon District Court C on the instant real estate, and the Defendant was awarded a successful bid and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 15, 2014.

B. However, the instant real estate was in the state where D, the wife of the Plaintiff, left the move-in report on June 3, 2013.

C. From April 21, 2014, the Defendant occupied and used the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 5, 7, and 8 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff possessed from April 2013 to exercise the right of retention, but the Defendant destroyed the rectification device of the instant real estate, and occupied the instant real estate after the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant real estate without permission. As such, the Defendant is obligated to remove the Plaintiff from possession of the instant real estate and deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and deliver each of the instant movable property to the Plaintiff.

B. The possessor may demand the return, etc. of the article when the possessor was deprived of possession. In such a claim for the recovery of possession, the question of whether the article was occupied at the time when the possessor asserts that the possessor was deprived of possession was deprived of possession should be examined. Here, the term "Possession" refers to an objective relation that the article belongs to a person's factual control under generally accepted social norms, and to a de facto control, it does not necessarily mean that the article is physically and practically controlled, but should be determined in conformity with the concept of society by taking into account the time, space and principal relation with the article, the possibility of excluding others' control, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da8713, Aug. 23, 1996; 2010Da18294, Oct. 15, 2010). First, according to each of the statements stated in Gap evidence 34-1 through 4, and Eul evidence 6-4, D, the Plaintiff’s wife.