1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumed facts

A. The Plaintiff acquired ownership on June 20, 2008 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Form No. 308 (hereinafter “instant house”) of the Daejeon Jung-gu B apartment (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendant is a subcontractor at the time of the construction of the instant building, and was not paid part of the construction cost of the instant building, and thus, possesses a considerable portion of the instant building and exercises a lien. At present, the Defendant currently occupies the instant house and exercises a lien thereon.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleading, or the whole pleading

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion has occupied the instant heading since June 20, 208.

However, around December 2015, a person who wants to rent the instant heading room shows the instant heading room and leaves the entrance without locked.

On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff had visited the instant heading on December 17, 2015, the Defendant had occupied the instant heading and had the Defendant allowed the Plaintiff to enter the said heading.

Therefore, since the defendant's possession of the defense room in this case is due to a tort, the right of retention is not established, the defendant is required to confirm the absence of a right of retention and deliver the defense room in this case.

3. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s right of retention is established on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant has a claim for the construction cost of the instant building; and (b) the possession of the instant heading, which is part of the instant building.

In regard to this, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant's possession of the family room of this case was caused by a tort, and thus, the right of retention is not established. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant's possession of the family room of this case was caused by the tort only by the descriptions or images of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including the numbers, if any).