1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) substantially operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “D”) leased and used the land Kim Jong-si E (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. D transferred part of the instant land to F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “F”).

C. F stored the steel materials owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant steel materials”) on the instant land, and the said steel materials continued to have been stored on the said land even after F’s transition period expired.

Accordingly, on May 2, 2017 and June 1, 2017, and July 11, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to D content-certified mail demanding the return of the instant steel, and the said content-certified mail reached D around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 5 (including branch numbers in the case of additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff leased the instant steel to F and stored it in the instant land that was used along with D. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 72,90,000 by preventing the Defendant from taking out the said steel while having a claim to F and preventing the Defendant from taking out the said steel.

In this regard, the defendant's refusal to take the river materials of this case is not the defendant, but D, and D's refusal to take the river materials of this case is to exercise legitimate right of retention or right of defense of simultaneous performance, the claim for warehouse usage fees or storage fees against F as the secured claim.

B. In light of the aforementioned evidence, D had a claim for rent against F, and D refused to remove the instant steel based on the above claim, and the Plaintiff also notified D to return the said steel. As seen earlier.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the possession of the lecture of this case and the refusal to return it is D.

Furthermore, the plaintiff.