1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment on the same day.

B. On August 11, 2009, the defendant filed a move-in report on the apartment of this case with his children, and from that time, he resided in the apartment of this case from that time to that time.

C. Since August 2, 2012, the amount equivalent to the rent for the instant apartment is KRW 500,000 per month.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment in this case to the plaintiff, unless there is no proof as to the right of possession of the apartment in this case, and pay damages calculated by the ratio of KRW 500,000 per month to the damages corresponding to the rent for the apartment in this case from August 2, 2012 that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the apartment in this case to the completion date of delivery of the apartment in this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion 1) The apartment of this case is Seoho Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Shoho Construction").

A) A lien was exercised to receive the claim for the payment of the cost of remodeling construction. Since the Defendant’s husband F entered into an agreement with the Defendant for the repair of the defect in Seocho Construction and assist the Defendant in the exercise of the right of retention for Seocho Construction, the Defendant is entitled to refuse the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the instant apartment as an assistant in possession of Seocho Construction. (2) The instant apartment is a real estate for which the remaining phenomenon is allowed to be used in accord with the Defendant on August 8, 2008, when the remainder of the apartment is the real estate for which the Plaintiff had been granted the consent of use in lieu of payment to the west Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Prize”), and the Plaintiff’s remaining phenomenon is a good company for the purpose of evading the obligation for the payment of the cost of construction. As such, the Plaintiff’s delivery and compensation for damages against the Defendant who has lawfully acquired the source of possession right from