1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff each land indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. In full view of the overall purport of each of the images and arguments held by Gap 1-1, 1-2, Gap 2-1 through 2-8, Eul 4-1 through 4-3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) on January 24, 2014, and the defendant can recognize the fact that he currently occupies the instant land. Thus, the defendant, who is the possessor of the instant land, is obligated to deliver the instant land to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant land, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the former owner of the instant land was a contracting party for civil engineering and shipbuilding works among the new apartment construction works on the instant land from Age Construction Co., Ltd., the former owner of the instant land, and performed land suspension works.

Therefore, the defendant has a claim for the construction cost equivalent to KRW 110,000,000, which reaches the maturity date for the land of this case, and possession of the land of this case based on the above claim is lawful as possession under the lien.

B. According to the judgment Eul 2, it is recognized that the defendant entered into a contract for civil engineering and structural construction among the construction of Nask Construction Co., Ltd., which was the former owner of the land in this case and the new construction of apartment houses on the ground in this case.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant performed the construction work in accordance with the above contract only with the respective descriptions described in Section B 1, 7, and 8, and each images described in Section A 4-1 through 4-3, and Section B 4-1 through 4-3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

Even if the Defendant assumed, as alleged by the Defendant, that the land suspension work, etc. was carried out on the instant land, the claim for the construction cost incurred until the Defendant ceased the construction work is related to the construction of a new building, and it is not related to the instant land, and thus the right of retention is not established.