1. The judgment of the court of first instance is as follows in accordance with the lawsuit of intermediate confirmation and the amended purport of the claim.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 11, 2015, with respect to the instant real estate, the procedure for compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was initiated in Suwon District Court D with Sung-nam Branch D upon the application of the FF association, a collateral security right holder.

B. In the instant auction procedure on December 10, 2015, the enforcement officer investigated the current status of the instant real estate on December 10, 2015, and prepared a letter of investigation into the status of the real estate and the possession relation of the said real estate, stating that “the possession relation” and “the current status of the said real estate and the report of the right and the notice of the application for the demand for distribution are attached to the current entrance-in-house due to the absence of the closure of the resident, and there is no household who has transferred from the said office to the moving-in household.” As construction cost

C. On February 25, 2016, the Defendant reported the lien of KRW 114,350,000 as the secured claim regarding the instant real estate at the instant auction procedure, and currently occupied the instant real estate.

On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the price in full at the instant auction procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 92337 of the receipt on December 12, 2016 and No. 475 of the same registry office on January 3, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant’s lien on the instant real estate asserted by the Plaintiff was false, or the secured claim was completed by the short-term extinctive prescription of three years.

Since the Defendant occupied the instant real estate after a compulsory decision on commencement of auction was made, the Defendant may not exercise the right of retention.

Even though it is not so, since the defendant uses and benefits from the real estate of this case, the amount equivalent to the rent should be deducted at least.

Therefore, since the Defendant uses and benefits from the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff without legal title, it delivers the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.