A. The Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. executed a loan to subordinate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor Co., Ltd.”), and set up a collateral security on each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet owned by the debtor company (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”).

B. The NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd. filed an application for auction of each of the buildings of this case as the debtor company did not pay a loan, and the decision to commence auction was in progress on May 13, 2015, and this Court B real estate auction case (hereinafter “instant auction case”).

C. The Plaintiff acquired the above loan claim from the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. and succeeded to the creditor status of the auction case of this case.

The Defendant, who runs the construction business of land-based automation facilities in the name of “C”, concluded a contract for construction of land-based automation facilities in the amount of KRW 400 million on June 5, 2014 with respect to each of the instant buildings with the debtor company and the instant building, and completed the construction work. The Defendant again filed a report on the lien of KRW 507,742,585, including interest in arrears, on October 27, 2015, with the right of retention of KRW 507,742,585, including interest in arrears, in the instant auction case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including the whole number, if any)]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion appears to be exercising the right of retention after acquiring possession from the debtor company after the decision on commencing the auction of this case. The transfer of such possession goes against the prohibition of disposition of seizure, which is the validity of the decision on commencing the auction, because it constitutes a disposal act that is likely to reduce the exchange value of the object of auction.

In this case, the defendant cannot oppose the plaintiff, who is the execution creditor of each building of this case, on the ground of the right of retention.

Therefore, the defendant's existence of the right of retention is sought.

B. The defendant's assertion.