The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The possession of an object refers to the objective relationship that appears to belong to a person’s factual control under the concept of society. Here, de facto control is not necessarily refer to only physical or practical control over an object, but should be determined in conformity with the concept of society by taking into account the time, space and principal relationship with the object, possibility of excluding others’ control, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da38266 delivered on June 23, 1992, etc.). 2. Facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows.

① The Defendants entered into a subcontract (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) with respect to reinforced concrete construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the said construction works, after having been awarded a contract for the F Facilities construction works in the Kanju City from the Central Council of the Army (hereinafter “C”), on November 15, 2010 with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

② On November 28, 2010, C entered into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the lease of temporary materials necessary for the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

③ Under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff supplied the temporary materials for construction as indicated in the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant temporary materials”) at the construction site of this case from December 3, 2010 to April 9, 2011, pursuant to the instant lease agreement.

④ As a director of C’s internal director, H, on April 9, 201, concluded a lease agreement with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), on April 18, 201, and each building-related temporary material company and each building-related temporary material company on May 24, 201, and the said company supplied the temporary material for building at the construction site of this case from that time.

⑤ While carrying out the instant construction, C discontinued the construction work on July 201 without adjusting the construction cost, and completed the construction site at the construction site. Accordingly, the Defendants settled the weather altitude up to that point between C and C on July 30, 201.