1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. From January 13, 2017, the above A

the buildings referred to in paragraph (1);

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant building by fully paying the sale price on January 13, 2017, after receiving a decision of permission for sale in the case of auction of B real estate (hereinafter “auction case”) from this court as to the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. At the time of the investigation into the present auction case, the Defendant was investigated as the possessor of the building of this case at the time of the investigation into the present auction case, and submitted a report of right with respect to the construction cost of KRW 242,340,000 in the auction case, and the Plaintiff sent a notice of claim for lien on the building

C. From January 13, 2017, the rent for the instant building is KRW 4,612,50 per month.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), appraiser C's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion (1) concluded a sales contract for the instant building between D and D, the former owner, and the Defendant concluded a sales contract for the instant building, and performed a partial remodeling construction work on the instant building for bath business upon delivery of the instant building as the buyer.

The defendant is merely in the name of the business owner E with respect to bath business in the building of this case, and does not have a claim for the construction cost against E or the former owner. Thus, the defendant does not have a lien on the building of this case.

(2) Around August 2015, Defendant E purchased the instant building from D, the former owner of the instant building, and requested the Defendant to undertake remodeling construction to repair the deteriorated bathing facilities regarding the instant building.

The defendant is unable to receive the remodeling construction cost from E, and thus, occupies the building in this case and exercises the right of retention.

As asserted by the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant purchased the instant building, the possessor has occupied it during the period of his possession.