A. In granting a loan to B, the Plaintiff as the mortgagee with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by him (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and as the obligor, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over each of the maximum debt amount of KRW 2.52 billion on September 6, 201 with the Defendant as the obligor, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.44 billion on October 27, 201 of the same year. Upon having filed an application for an auction to exercise the security right to the instant real estate on March 14, 2013, where B did not repay the loan, the Plaintiff was ordered to commence the auction on March 14, 201.

(B) The auction procedure after the decision on commencing the auction was rendered (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

On June 10, 2013, the Defendant reported the lien on the possession of the instant real estate as the lien holder, as it did not receive KRW 443,636,364 of the remainder of the construction work of the factory building among the instant real estate from the Gannam Industry (hereinafter “Seoul”) in the instant auction procedure.

C. From November 22, 2010 to October 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) opened the instant real estate site from D, E, etc. from around November 22, 2010 to caused D, E, etc. to prepare a brief report on the said date’s situation and a photograph attached thereto; and (b) up to that time, posted a notice on the wall of the instant real estate pents and the temporary office that the Defendant exercises the right of retention.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 13, 17, 18 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness F's testimony, witness E's testimony, part of witness E's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff alleged that the existence of the defendant's claim for the remainder of the construction works against the Gyeongnam industry is doubtful, and that the defendant does not occupy the real estate of this case, so the defendant's right of retention on the real estate of this case does not exist, the defendant's claim concerning the real estate of this case.