1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In the Suwon District Court’s Busan District Court’s case of a compulsory auction for real estate C’s real estate in the attached list owned by Nonparty B (hereinafter “instant apartment”), the Plaintiff reported a lien on the instant apartment. On April 9, 2012, the Defendant was awarded a successful bid for the instant apartment and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 9, 2012 as Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch No. 11515, Apr. 9, 2012.

B. After that, the Defendant filed an application against Nonparty B for an order of delivery of real estate with Suwon District Court Ansan Branch D, and the above court accepted the above application on April 10, 2012 and rendered a decision to deliver the apartment of this case to the Defendant against Nonparty B (hereinafter “instant decision”).

C. Upon the instant decision became final and conclusive, the Defendant filed an application for extradition execution with respect to the instant apartment under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch No. 2012No. 1875, and the execution officer affiliated with the said court completed extradition execution on April 30, 2012.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 3

5. Evidence of 9, each entry of evidence of 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff occupied the apartment of this case as the lien holder of the apartment of this case and attached the indication " while exercising the right of retention", and the defendant damaged it on April 30, 2012, and infringed on the apartment of this case by altering the locking device, and thereafter occupied the apartment of this case until now. This constitutes an occupied slope as provided by Article 204 (1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the defendant must return to the plaintiff the possession of the apartment of this case.

3. The testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 4, 5, and 6, and the testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 7 and witness E is insufficient to recognize that the defendant damaged the indication "in the course of exercising the right of retention" attached by the plaintiff on April 30, 2012, and infringed on the apartment of this case by changing the locking device.