1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the deceased’s administrator of inherited property, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 10, 2013.

B. The Defendant occupied the instant apartment from July 2010 to the present time.

On December 29, 2014, by a provisional execution based on the judgment of the first instance court, it appears that the defendant lost its possession on December 29, 2014, but the effect of enforcement based on the judgment of the provisional execution is not conclusive, but is a condition subsequent to cancellation of the sentence of provisional execution or the judgment on the merits in the second instance. Thus, in a case where the creditor obtains satisfaction upon the completion of execution by the declaration of provisional execution, the propriety of the claim should be determined without considering the result of the execution in the appellate court.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da35722, Sept. 8, 2011). (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da35722, Sept. 8, 201). . [Grounds for recognition] without any dispute; Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 7; Eul evidence 9-1, 2, and

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, unless he proves his title to possess the apartment of this case.

3. Judgment as to the defendant's right of retention

A. The defendant's assertion that the right of retention exists based on the claim for the construction price. The defendant registered the business with the trade name "E" in the name of father D, and then performed the construction work after receiving a subcontract for the construction work from the Osung Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Osung Construction") which is the contractor of the new construction of the apartment in this case. The defendant still did not receive the construction cost of KRW 287,00,000,000, the right of retention is exercised for the apartment in this case.