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 August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a lower-class right with the maximum claim amounting to KRW 910 million against the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on August 31, 2017.

B. On February 5, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of real estate with the Daejeon District Court Support D for the above right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). On February 5, 2020, the said court rendered a decision to commence the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

(c)

On April 27, 2020, the Defendant reported the lien on the instant real estate itself on the ground that the instant auction procedure entered into a verbal agreement with E, the owner of the instant real estate, to supply ready-mixed goods, and the unpaid ready-mixed goods, as a creditor of KRW 105,146,00, the price for the instant ready-mixed goods, is occupying a road where the said ready-mixed was used.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's claim is a claim for the purchase price of goods as a preserved right, which is only a claim for the purchase price, and this is not a claim arising from the real estate of this case, and thus cannot be a preserved right of lien. Furthermore, the defendant does not occupy the real

The argument is asserted.

In this regard, the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of ready-mixed between E, the owner of the instant real estate and E, who is the owner of the instant real estate, supplied ready-mixed, and is not paid the price, and thus, the Defendant may exercise the right of retention with the claim for the price of the goods as the right to preserve the said claim, and the Defendant

The argument is asserted.

3. On the other hand, in a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff denied the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant bears the burden of proving the requisite facts of the legal relationship. Thus, in a lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence of the right of retention, the right of retention, which is the requisite facts of the right of retention,