1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with B to carry out the construction work of installing waste rupture disposal facilities (hereinafter “instant construction work”) on each real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the contract amount of KRW 3 billion from B, and completed the instant construction work.

However, the Plaintiff received only KRW 500 million out of the construction price from B, and the Plaintiff has a claim for construction price exceeding KRW 700 million against B.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs, as seen above, since the instant construction was carried out.

C. Since the completion of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate to secure the above claim for construction price or the right to claim reimbursement for beneficial expenses from the date of the completion thereof. Since the Defendant, the owner of the instant real estate, denies the Plaintiff’s right to retention, it should be confirmed that the Plaintiff has the right to retention

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction is consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion otherwise.

[Plaintiff submitted Gap evidence No. 7 to prove the fact that the Plaintiff performed the instant construction work, but Gap evidence No. 7 directly performed the instant construction work as a protocol of examination of witness for the case No. 2012 Go-Ma293, Goyang District Court 2012 Go-Ma293, and D, the representative director of the Plaintiff and B, prepared false evidence No. 1 (contract for Construction Work). However, since Eul corporation issued a tax invoice with the supply price of 50 million won to the Plaintiff, it cannot be viewed as evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion. Rather, according to the evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 1 through 4, and evidence No. 6, the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff.