1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff established the right to collateral security on a loan to E, and completed the registration of the creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of the F-si Kim Jong-si’s land (hereinafter “instant land”) and the real estate attached thereto (hereinafter “instant building”); G land located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City and its ground buildings; the maximum debt amount of G land and its ground buildings located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City; and the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”).

B. The Plaintiff’s voluntary auction application E with respect to the instant land and building delayed repayment of the loan to the Plaintiff, and on May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for voluntary auction with respect to the instant land and building to the Jeonju District Court D, based on the instant collateral security.

On May 24, 2016, the above court rendered a decision to commence an auction of real estate rent.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant voluntary auction procedure”) with respect to the auction procedure conducted according to the order to commence the said real estate auction.

On June 8, 2016, the Defendant reported the right of retention to the effect that the Defendant reported the right of retention to the effect that the claim for construction cost of KRW 125,537,49 regarding the instant building was the secured claim in the instant voluntary auction procedure.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lien”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not hold a claim for the construction cost as to the building of this case, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff occupied the building of this case before the commencement of the voluntary auction procedure.

Therefore, the defendant's right of retention as the secured claim regarding the building of this case does not exist, thus seeking confirmation.

B. Defendant 1, who is the representative of E, has set up the building cost of KRW 180 million between J and the construction cost of the instant building and removed the walls of this case.