1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

The reasoning of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for any further determination below, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

《추가판단》 당심에서 추가로 현출된 을가 제61 내지 86호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 및 영상, 당심의 BJ 주식회사에 대한 각 사실조회 결과는 일부 믿기 어렵거나 위 각 증거를 보탠다고 하더라도, ① 피고의 F에 대한 채권이 B 점유 부분 토지 자체에서 발생하였다

It is insufficient to recognize that there was a legal relationship or fact identical to the right to claim the return of the pertinent land, and ② It is insufficient to reverse the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Defendant’s right of retention defense or to recognize the Defendant’s assertion related to this part, including the fact-finding of the first instance court including the fact-finding that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had occupied the portion of B possession prior to July 28, 2014, when the registration of the entry of the decision

Even if there is no correlation between the damage claim or settlement money claim related to aggregate production and the land in B, the Defendant asserts that the commercial lien is established as long as both the Defendant and the Defendant, the creditor, and the F, the debtor, are merchants. However, the commercial lien is required to possess the goods owned by the debtor (Article 58 of the Commercial Act), and the land owned by the Defendant, which is not F, is owned by the Plaintiff, which is not F, and therefore, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.