2...

(1) In the case of the building listed in the [Attachment I] list, hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case

He newly built the pension business.

This Court's F compulsory auction procedure on the land of this case is less than 'the auction procedure of this case'.

In the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff paid the proceeds from the sale of the instant land on December 28, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 9, 2016. At the instant auction procedure, the Defendant reported the right of retention with the claim for the construction cost of the instant building against B as the secured claim. The Plaintiff asserted that B owned the instant building and occupied the instant land without the title to occupy the instant land, and filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of the instant building and the transfer of the instant land, and received a favorable judgment from the court on September 20, 2017 (No. 2016Ga53643). B appealed appealed against the said judgment (this Court Decision 2017Na53498). B and the Plaintiff during the appellate trial on April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff confirmed that there was no obligation to dispose of the instant building and to pay the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff, including the Defendant, pursuant to the agreement among the right holder, and confirmed that B and the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the said construction cost.

2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a right of retention, the person who claims the right of retention ought to assert and prove the fact that the requirements for its establishment and existence are met (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da84971, Jan. 29, 2015). Thus, the instant case is the requisite fact of existence of a right of retention for the Defendant, who asserts that the right of retention of the instant building is