1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment on this part of the basic facts is as follows: “Defendant B Co., Ltd.” in Section 2 of Section 4 of the judgment of the first instance is as “Co-Defendant B”; “Defendant B” below as “B”; “Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”)” and “Defendant C” as “Defendant”; “trade” in Section 18 as “trade on March 17, 2017”; and “trade” in Section 1 as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for respective appeals, is as stated in Section 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. As the contractor of the instant building, the Plaintiff occupied the instant building on the basis of the claim for payment of construction price accrued from 2009 and exercised the right of retention. On November 201, 2017, the Plaintiff occupied the instant building.

However, on November 1, 2017 and the 20th of the same month, B deprived of the Plaintiff’s possession by force. The Defendant, while being aware of the illegal deprivation of possession by B, was “the special successor of bad faith,” who was transferred from B the possession, is currently possessing the part of the claim stated in the instant building (hereinafter “part of claim”).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the part stated in the claim pursuant to Article 204 of the Civil Act.

B. Defendant B, at the time of acquiring ownership of the part stated in the purport of the claim, occupied ten subcontractors of the instant building and exercised the right of retention. After agreement with the other subcontractors except AI (hereinafter “AI”), Defendant B received the instant building from them. In a lawsuit for the recovery of possession filed by the AI jointly occupied against B, Defendant B received a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the lawsuit for the recovery of possession, and subsequently received the part stated in the purport of the claim from AI on November 13, 2017 by mutual consent with the AI, the Plaintiff did not occupy the part stated in the purport of the claim at that time.

B In this case, B receives any money unfairly in the gap of the lien agreement with the subcontractor.