A. On November 12, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring building of KRW A and the maximum debt amount of KRW 296,400,000 with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by A, 9/10 shares (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with the District Court B regarding the instant building with the claimed amount of KRW 291,984,355, and received the order of commencement on December 21, 2016.

C. In the above auction procedure, the Defendant reported the lien of KRW 80,000,000 for the construction cost under the interior contract concluded as of January 8, 2016 on the instant building as the secured claim.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of the right of retention, the person who claims the right of retention shall claim and prove the existence of the right of retention, such as the existence of the secured debt, possession of the object, etc. and the fact of the requirements

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409, Mar. 10, 2016). B.

It is difficult to recognize that the defendant possessed the building of this case only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 to 4.

C. In an auction procedure to exercise a security right, there is a legal interest in seeking a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of a lien against the person who has reported his/her right as a lien holder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da32848 delivered on September 23, 2004, etc.). D.

Therefore, it is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion