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

From January 1, 2010 to December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff, as a merchant, had a claim for construction cost of KRW 1.935 million against C, who was the owner of the said hotel, by performing a substitute construction work for the tourist hotel B (hereinafter referred to as “instant hotel”) listed in [Attachment 1] [Attachment 5] in relation to the new construction of the tourist hotel B (hereinafter referred to as “instant hotel”) listed in [Attachment 1] among each of the instant real estate. However, the Plaintiff, as a secured claim, occupied each of the instant real estate from March 12, 2013 and exercised a lien.

Nevertheless, the Defendant asserts that there exists a civil lien and commercial lien that covers the claim for the construction cost as the secured claim against each of the real estate in this case, as the Plaintiff’s right of retention.

2. As to whether the Plaintiff possessed each of the instant real estate, according to the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and Gap evidence No. 8, the registration of the decision on voluntary commencement of auction was completed on August 28, 2013 with respect to each of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff submitted a report on the right of retention with respect to the instant hotel among the instant real estate at the above auction procedure on May 20, 2014 to the Plaintiff. While the Defendant can be recognized as being awarded a successful bid in the above auction procedure, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant real estate including the instant hotel from August 28, 2013 to the date of the closing of argument, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the number of Nos. 5, 8, 9, and 10 is each number.