A. An incorporated agricultural company (hereinafter referred to as “record”) was loaned KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff on July 23, 2014, KRW 150 million on November 26, 2014, and KRW 300 million on December 21, 2015, respectively.

B. On July 23, 2014, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is owned by the Plaintiff as collateral for the above loan debt, the record completed the registration for the establishment of a mortgage on July 23, 2014 regarding the real estate, etc. listed in paragraph (2) of the same Table, which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 260,000,000, and ② the registration for the alteration of the right to collateral security or the registration for the establishment of an additional collateral security on November 21, 2014 regarding the whole real estate listed in the separate sheet, and ③ the registration for the establishment of a mortgage on December 18, 2015 regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 45,00,000.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction on the said real estate, etc. on July 4, 2017, when the record delays the performance of the above loan obligation, and the auction procedure was commenced on July 4, 2017. D.

In the above auction procedure, on September 14, 2017, the Defendant reported the right of retention with the amount of KRW 16,50,000 as the secured debt.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-9 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant, at the instant auction procedure, asserts the right of retention on the immovables listed in the separate sheet, but if the right of retention is established, he must possess the subject matter, and even if he acquires possession on such immovables after the seizure takes effect, he cannot claim the right of retention against the mortgagee, who has applied for the auction, even if he has obtained possession on such immovables after the entry of the decision of commencement

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da22688, Aug. 19, 2005). In this case, the Defendant’s possession of the above real estate on the ground of the above claim for construction cost from September 17, 2017 is the Defendant himself.