A. On July 9, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate set forth in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at KRW 208,000,000, out of the debtor Nonparty B and the maximum debt amount.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

On June 18, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction of real estate to the Incheon District Court C with respect to the instant real estate, and on June 19, 2014, the entry registration was completed on the same day after receiving a decision to commence voluntary auction on the same date.

(hereinafter “instant auction”). C.

On September 11, 2014, the Defendant reported that there was a lien on the instant real estate on the ground that “the instant real estate has a claim of KRW 57,200,000 for the construction cost for interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works, removal works, electrical construction, partitions construction works, and installation works” in the auction procedure of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 3 through 5, and 7's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Nonparty D, the owner of the instant real estate reported by the Defendant as the secured claim of the right of retention, does not exist, and the Defendant does not occupy the instant real estate. Therefore, there is no right of retention of the Defendant on the instant real estate.

B. The defendant's assertion concluded a sales contract for the real estate of this case with the above D, but the above sales contract was terminated due to the violation of D's duty, and under D's consent, five million won was the electrical construction for the real estate of this case, five million won was the removal construction, five million won as the removal construction, five million won as the Klag construction, fifteen million won as the Klag construction, three million won as the Klag construction, and three million won as the installation work, and completed the above construction. Thus, the defendant has claims worth KRW 17 million as the necessary cost and the beneficial cost of KRW 35 million as the construction work. The above real estate is occupied and used.

3. Determination A.