However, the Defendants did not have a claim for the construction cost of KRW 650 million, or did not possess the instant real estate, so the Defendants’ lien is not established.

Since the public auction of the instant real estate is under way with respect to the instant real estate to Daejeon District Court public housing support C, the Plaintiff, as a mortgagee of the instant real estate, sought confirmation of the existence of the Defendants’ right of retention.

2. In the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the right of retention, if the plaintiff asserted to deny the fact of the cause of the right of retention for which the plaintiff seeks confirmation of absence by specifying the claim first, the defendants are liable to prove the existence and existence of the right of retention.

Nevertheless, the Defendants submitted a formal reply demanding only the dismissal of claim without stating at all the practical reasons for the Plaintiff’s filing of a complaint and without attending the date of pleading. As such, the right of retention cannot be acknowledged against the Defendants as a preserved right, whose claim for the construction price of KRW 650 million as to the instant real estate is a preserved right.

Furthermore, since the Plaintiff is a mortgagee of the instant real estate in progress, there is a benefit to confirm the absence of a lien by the Defendants.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit.