1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around July 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff is a good so-called “good so-called” (hereinafter “good so-called “the Plaintiff’s assertion”).

(2) From the time of the supply of the construction cost of the construction of the construction of the underground floor and the air-going locker building on the 7th floor size of each of the instant lands, the construction was suspended due to the failure to receive KRW 550 million for the construction cost of each of the instant lands from around that time, and the construction was currently being performed while installing the pents and performing the civil engineering works, and the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant lands to recover the claim for the construction cost as to the present good smallness. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to attract each of the instant lands until the said claim for the payment of the construction cost was paid. Since the Plaintiff interfered with the Plaintiff’s possession based on the Plaintiff’s lien by demanding the Plaintiff to transfer each of the above lands after acquiring the ownership of each of the instant lands, the Plaintiff’s lien against the Defendant (i) the existence of the right of retention as the secured claim for the construction cost of each of the instant lands, and (ii) the prohibition of interference with possession of each of the above lands.

B. The right of retention is established when a person who occupies another person's goods has a claim in a relation with the said goods. Thus, possession is naturally necessary and the possession should continue. If the lien holder loses possession, the right of retention shall be extinguished (Article 328 of the Civil Act), and the entries or images of the evidence of subparagraphs A and 1 through 3 (including each number) are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff possessed each land of this case as of the date of closing argument of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, if the contractor who has built the new building occupies the building and has claims for the construction proceeds arising from the building, the contractor has the right to attract the building until he is paid the claims, but the new building is built.