The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment is as follows, with the exception of the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the reasoning of the judgment is as follows.

[Attachment] The part in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “On June 2, 2016,” “On May 13, 2016,” the part in the judgment of the court of first instance No. 3, 2016.”

The judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as " September 20, 2018," "No. 16, 2018" in the 12th sentence on the 3th page of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The first instance judgment's 6th page 15 of the 6th instance judgment "for the time when the lien is extinguished due to that time," is as follows:

Article 324(3) of the Civil Act provides that “If a lien holder fails to possess the thing in custody with due care as a good manager, a debtor may demand the extinction of the lien.” Even if C violated the fiduciary duty as a lien, even if the lien holder violated the fiduciary duty as a person with a lien.

Even at home, the first instance judgment No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., whether the right of retention ceases to exist by the debtor's claim for the extinction of the right of retention, and that there was a violation of C's duty of care due to C's violation of the duty of care due to the fact that the right of retention is not immediately extinguished, as follows.

“P and two others” filed an appeal against C on April 10, 2020 that the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of a lien (Seoul Central District Court 2018 Gohap 523728) against C is pending in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2020Na20824).

[....]

2. Additional determination

A. On January 13, 2016, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion C prepared a certificate of confirmation of termination of the right of retention to the effect that “the termination of the right of retention in this case is confirmed” to M, and C had already expired according to the above agreement of termination of the right of retention.

C. The terms written by C.