1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion has the right of retention against the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). As the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the designated parties unlawfully deprived of the Plaintiff’s possession and interfere with the exercise of the right of retention on September 13, 2014, the Plaintiff, as a claim for possession recovery, sought delivery of the instant building to the Defendant and the designated parties.

2. According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 9 (including paper numbers), the contract for the construction of the building of this case was concluded on April 5, 2007 between the non-party C Co. and the non-party D Co., Ltd. on April 5, 2007. The subcontract (hereinafter "the construction of this case") was concluded on May 29, 2007 between D Co. and the plaintiff on May 29, 2007 with respect to the construction of new buildings (the contract price of 8,859,60,000,000) and the non-party D Co., Ltd. on May 6, 207, the plaintiff confirmed that the office 200,000 won and the non-party D Co., Ltd. completed the construction of this case on June 4, 2013 and confirmed that the office 60,000,000 won and the non-party D Co., Ltd.'s office 70,200.

Even if the Plaintiff had a lien on the instant building, the entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 20 (including paper numbers) are separate from whether C corporation occupies the instant building.