1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 12, 2012, in order to secure loan claims against Nonparty B, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage amount of KRW 1 billion with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on April 12, 201.

B. On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate with the Jung-gu District Court C regarding the instant real estate, and the said court rendered a voluntary decision to commence auction on December 15, 2014 and completed the registration of the entry of the decision to commence auction on the same day.

C. On February 27, 2015, the Defendant reported the right of retention with the amount of KRW 280,000,000 which was not paid even after the construction of housing site and construction of a new building was conducted in accordance with the agreement to develop and sell the instant real estate at the above auction court and divide profits therefrom.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including provisional number), significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. In a lawsuit seeking passive confirmation, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the cause of the right is denied first, the Defendant, the right holder, is liable to assert and prove the fact that the legal relationship is required (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). Therefore, in this case, the Defendant, the right holder, claiming that the lien holder is the lien holder, bears the burden of proving the existence of the subject matter and related claims, and the burden of proving the possession

B. (1) The plaintiff asserted that the defendant does not possess the real estate of this case, and that the secured debt claimed by the defendant is related to the distribution of profits under the business agreement and there is no relation of relation between the real estate of this case and the real estate of this case.

(2) To examine the judgment, the Defendant asserted the existence of the right of retention, and did not submit any evidence, and thus, accepted the Defendant’s assertion.