1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The creditors who participated in the new construction of the building in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant hotel”) executed by Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) and did not receive the claim for the construction price (hereinafter “instant claim for the construction price”) have established the Plaintiff Council on January 18, 2012 for the purpose of collecting the claim.

B. From February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff occupied the entire hotel of this case with the claim for the construction cost of this case as the secured claim and exercised the right of retention.

C. However, on November 11, 2013, the Defendant at the instant hotel in the auction procedure of real estate C in this Court: (a) applied for compulsory execution on the basis of an illegal order for delivery of real estate (this court D) on March 26, 2014; and (b) deprived the Plaintiff’s members of the instant hotel by forcing the Plaintiff to leave the instant hotel; and (c) prevented the entrance.

(hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). D.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to deliver to the plaintiff seeking the recovery of possession of the hotel of this case.

2. Before examining whether the instant compulsory execution was unlawful, we examine whether the Plaintiff occupied the instant hotel at the time of the instant compulsory execution.

A. "Possession" refers to an objective relationship that shows that an object belongs to a factual control of the person in terms of social norms, and in order to have a de facto control, it does not necessarily mean that the object is physically and practically controlled, but should be determined in accordance with social norms by taking into account the time and spatial relationship with the object, the relationship with the object, the possibility of exclusion from others' control, etc. In a lawsuit for recovery of possession, it must be examined as to whether the object has occupied at the time of the assertion that he/she was deprived of possession.

Supreme Court Decision 95Da8713 delivered on August 23, 1996, and July 2003