1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B agreed to recover the possession of the part written in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant store”) among the building located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “instant building”). As such, Defendant B is obligated to order the Plaintiff to leave the instant store in accordance with the above agreement. Defendant C and D leased the instant store from F, which is the former owner of the instant building, and are currently engaged in restaurant business, possess and use the instant store, but they do not have any title to occupy it, and thus, Defendant B and the Plaintiff should also order the instant store along with the Plaintiff.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 29, 2003, Defendant B entered into a contract for the construction of a private house with the representative of the Korea Diplomatic Association of the Korea Diplomatic Association and the construction cost of the instant building at KRW 1.4 billion, and Defendant B performed the said construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. After that, the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of November 26, 2004 on the instant building on the ground of sale as of June 4, 2004.

C. On December 24, 2004, Defendant B filed an application with I for a provisional injunction against disposal of each of the instant real estate and received a decision of acceptance. On September 2005, Defendant B occupied the instant store between I and I. However, on the condition that the provisional injunction against disposal of the instant building should be rescinded (as of March 22, 2006), Defendant B recovered part of the possession of the instant store.

On June 22, 2005, the procedure for compulsory auction by official auction was initiated by the court of this court on the building of this case. In the above procedure, Defendant B asserted the existence of the first construction cost claim of KRW 1.344 billion, and on August 14, 2006, upon occupying the building of this case, filed a lien report with the above auction court on August 14, 2006 (hereinafter the above lien referred to as “the first lien”), but reported the amount of the first construction cost claim of KRW 1.23 billion on October 9 of the same year to be corrected as KRW 1.22 billion, and the Plaintiff on July 2, 2006.