1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the C 102 201 square meters (137.0931 square meters of steel reinforced concrete structure) of the second floor of 201 square meters (137.0931 square meters).

2...

1. The facts that the defendant possessed the building as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “instant building”) do not dispute between the parties, and considering the overall purport of entry and pleadings as stated in No. 1-2, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having completed registration of preservation of ownership of the instant building on November 5, 2009, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the plaintiff upon the plaintiff’s claim for exclusion of disturbance presumed as the owner of the instant building.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The main point of the argument is that the defendant occupies the building of this case with the delegation from the future Switzerland, Inc., the lien holder of the building of this case (hereinafter “SPP”) and accordingly, the defendant's possession is legitimate and thus the plaintiff's claim is unreasonable.

B. 1) First of all, in light of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 2 as to whether future Switzerland is the lien holder for the building of this case, it can be acknowledged that the future Switzerland was awarded a subcontract for part of the building of this case from Dried Construction Co., Ltd. and did not receive construction cost of 383,587,000 won even if it was performed. Since the defendant who directly occupies the building of this case expresses the possession relationship with the future Switzerland, it can be deemed that the future Switzerland currently occupies the building of this case. However, the right of retention cannot be asserted based on the possession commenced by a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 66Da600, Jun. 7, 196; 2000; 383,5,66,7 evidence No. 1-2,77, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments as to the building of this case, which is the right of collateral security.