1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On January 22, 2015, at the request of the Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee, the land of this case owned D, the decision of voluntary commencement of auction was rendered by the Changwon District Court on January 22, 2015. On the 23th of the same month following the day, the registration of the decision of voluntary commencement of auction was completed as the receipt of the Changwon District Court Kim Sea Registry

(2) In the instant auction procedure, an order for investigation into the current status was issued on January 27, 2015, and the status of the real estate attached to the report on investigation into the status of the real estate (Evidence A-1 to 3) submitted on February 3, 2015 and the investigation into the possession relationship of the real estate of this case are indicated in the “third party possession” as to the possession relationship of the real estate of this case, but in other columns, “A (G) and B (H (H) who had performed civil construction works and had a franchise card attached to G to exercise the right of retention.”

Meanwhile, the lease relation investigation report attached to the above report on the survey of the real estate stated that the Defendants occupied the real estate of this case from several months before the Defendants possessed it, and stated in other columns “A and B have suspended part of the land, according to the statements made by A and B, and performed civil works, blasting and drilling work, and exercised lien.”

On March 3, 2015, Defendant A submitted a lien report (No. 5-1 of the evidence No. 5) to the effect that Defendant A filed a lien on the claim for construction cost of KRW 167,581,400 in total as the secured claim at the instant auction procedure.

In the instant real estate, prior to the decision to commence the voluntary auction procedure of the instant auction procedure, the banner called “in the exercise of the right of retention for civil works” was affected by the banner (a banner includes G and H, which is the trade name of the Defendants) and the retaining wall, indicated that “the right of retention for civil works exists, October 20, 2014,” and the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the time of installation.