1. It is confirmed that no lien on each real estate listed in the defendant's separate list does exist.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 30, 2010, in order to execute a loan to B and secure the claim for a loan to B, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to establish a collateral security (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with a maximum debt amount of KRW 117 million with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by 4 and B on December 30, 2010, and the debtor B and the mortgagee entered into a contract to establish a collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral security on the same day.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for auction to exercise the security right against the instant real estate based on the instant collateral security agreement with the Youngju District Court, Youngju District Court, and the said court rendered a voluntary decision to commence auction on October 27, 2014 and completed the registration of the entry thereof on October 29, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction”) C.

On January 28, 2015, the Defendant reported the right of retention by the Defendant, claiming that the lessee of the instant real estate did not receive the refund of the lease deposit, and that the Defendant spent the total amount of KRW 28 million with the repair and preservation expenses while occupying and using the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the relevant legal doctrine, if the Plaintiff asserted to deny the fact that the cause of the right occurred by specifying the claim first, the Defendant, who claimed to be the right holder, bears the burden of proving the fact that the legal relationship

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). B.

The defendant asserted that the real estate B and the real estate of this case entered into a lease contract with the security deposit of KRW 30 million. The defendant occupied and used the real estate of this case, and disbursed the total of KRW 28 million with the repair preservation cost.

Therefore, the defendant shall be the defendant 3.