1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) KRW 2,300,000 and this shall apply thereto.

Basic Facts

On June 23, 2017, the registration of the entry of the decision on voluntary commencement of auction on the same day was completed with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet listed in C (hereinafter “instant building”) and the registration of the entry of the decision on voluntary commencement of auction on the same day.

On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff, who received the decision of permission for sale in the instant auction procedure, paid the sale price in full, and acquired the ownership of the instant building.

The Plaintiff was handed over the instant building from C around May 14, 2018.

On June 15, 2018, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2,500,000 on February 28, 2019, with regard to the crime of “the crime of intrusion on a structure and damage to property” (hereinafter referred to as “instant tort”), which read “in the course of exercising the right of retention,” by opening locks of the instant building with a view to exercising the right of retention and excavating the door of the instant building, and cutting down a hole on the front door of the instant building and cutting down the door of the door of the instant building with a red paint, and making use of the outer wall as soon as possible on the outer wall of the instant building.”

(2) According to the aforementioned facts of determination as to the grounds for the determination as to the claim for the delivery of the instant building, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, unless there are special circumstances, to the effect that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition [Attachment 1609] . [Attachment 1 to 4, 6, and 9 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

The defendant's defense is the lien holder who possesses the building of this case because he did not receive the construction cost of the building of this case, and therefore, he does not have a duty to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

According to the above facts, the defendant's possession of the building of this case is due to the illegal act of intrusion upon the building. Thus, the right of retention can be claimed in accordance with Article 320 (2) of the Civil Act.