1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On February 5, 2010, the Large-Rate Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Large-Rate Industry Development”) was awarded a contract for the construction of a gas charging station in Suwon-si E, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the Co., Ltd., Dong preventivex, F, and the Defendant were awarded a subcontract for the construction of a gas charging station in the area of the large-rate industry development around that time.

B. On March 22, 2012, a new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) obtained a decision to commence a voluntary auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) from the said court as a mortgagee on real estate and machinery, equipment, etc. listed in the separate sheet owned by C and D (hereinafter “instant real estate, etc.”) from a creditor against C and a new bank as a special purpose corporation established pursuant to the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, upon filing an application for a voluntary auction with the Suwon District Court for the instant real estate, etc. on March 22, 2012. The Plaintiff was transferred the said bonds and collateral security from the new bank as a special purpose corporation established pursuant to the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

C. In the instant auction procedure, around May 3, 2013, the Defendant reported the lien on the ground that there was a claim for construction price relating to the instant real estate, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 10 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties did not exist any claim for the construction cost claimed by the Defendant, and there is no connection with the instant real estate, etc.

Even if the above claim for the construction price exists, the defendant does not possess the current real estate, etc., and even if he/she currently occupies, he/she did not occupy the real estate before March 22, 2012, the entry of the decision on the commencement of voluntary auction as to the real estate, etc., which was completed, and thus the possession thereafter thereafter goes against the effect of prohibition of disposition of seizure.

Therefore, the defendant's lien on the real estate of this case does not exist, or against the plaintiff.