D Partnership applied for a voluntary auction on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant auction real estate”) as the case in Suwon District Court credit support E on March 7, 2013, and the decision to commence auction was made on March 11, 2013.

On June 17, 2013, the Defendant reported the right of retention of KRW 260,00,000,000 as the secured claim, on the instant auction real estate, with respect to the land of KRW 812 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) among the instant auction real estate.

On January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the instant auction real estate and paid KRW 2,801,000,000 for the sales price. On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said real estate.

The defendant set up a container stuff on the forest land of this case to exercise the right of retention, and currently owns the container stuff.

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Defendant, who was the owner of the instant forest, received the construction cost from F, and performed the construction work of installing roads, drainage roads, stone embankments, water tank, and filled-up in the above forest, etc. to prevent landslides.

The claim for the price arising from such construction works has arisen with respect to the forest of this case, and the defendant has occupied the forest of this case before the auction on the forest of this case was commenced for the purpose of securing the above claim. Thus, the defendant, as a lien on the forest of this case, may oppose the plaintiff, who is the successful bidder in the above forest of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is improper.

Plaintiff

The Defendant did not perform construction work in the forest of this case, and the Defendant’s claim against F claimed by the Defendant against the forest of this case is irrelevant to the forest of this case, and cannot be asserted as the secured claim of lien for the forest of this case.

Judgment

The evidence as seen earlier is whether a lien on the forest of this case is granted to the Defendant.