유치권부존재확인
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff UAW specialized in the securitization is the mortgagee of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1, and the Plaintiff USA system specialized in the next securitization is the mortgagee of the real estate listed in the attached Table 2.
B. The voluntary auction procedure is in progress with respect to the real estate listed in this Court B and Attached 2 List C with respect to the real estate listed in the Attached 1 List.
C. At each of the above auction procedures, the Defendant reported that there was a lien on the debtor corporation D (hereinafter “D”) and E with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant reported that there was a tree price of KRW 902,616,00 and a lien on the transplant construction cost claim as a secured claim.
The land in this case is owned by E, and E is the representative director of D and the spouse of the defendant.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap 1 to 3, 10 to 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The secured claim asserted by the plaintiffs is nonexistent, and there is no relationship between the land of this case and the land of this case, and the defendant does not occupy the land of this case, so there is no right of retention of the defendant with respect to the land
3. Determination
A. In a lawsuit seeking passive confirmation where the burden of proof lies, if the plaintiff first specified the claim in order to deny the fact of the cause of the right, the defendant, who is the right holder, bears the burden of proving the fact of the requirement of the right relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). Therefore, in this case, the defendant, who claimed as the lien holder, must prove the occurrence of secured claim, the relation between the land and the secured claim, and the fact of possession of the land in this case.
B. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts in the video products as evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 9, 1 through 5, 8, 9, and 7, of the secured claim No. 7:
(1) The defendant