1. It is confirmed that no lien on each real estate listed in the separate list of the Defendants does exist.

2...

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence No. 1-1-1-13 and No. 2.

On December 16, 2010, the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “CF”) completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 1, 2, and 3 through 12, listed in the separate list No. 3 through 12, listed in the Annex No. 1, 2010 owned by C, the representative director B, and each real estate listed in the separate list No. 3 through B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

B. After that, B did not repay the above loan obligations, agricultural cooperatives filed an application for voluntary auction on October 12, 2012 with the court D regarding the instant real estate based on the instant collateral security, and received the decision to commence voluntary auction on October 15, 2012.

C. In the above auction procedure, Defendant Taehun Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Taehun Construction”) reported the construction cost claim against B, Defendant A reported the mechanical sale price claim against B, and the right of retention as each preserved bond.

On the other hand, on December 27, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for loans from Nonghyup, and completed the registration changing the collateral security interest of the instant case from Nonghyup to the Plaintiff on January 21, 2013.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim against B does not exist, and the Defendants did not occupy the instant real estate, so there is no lien on the instant real estate by the Defendants.

B. Defendant Taehun Construction’s assertion by the Defendants is the construction of each of the buildings listed in Section 8, 10, 11, and 12 of the attached Table Nos. 8, 10, 11, and 12, and there is a claim for the construction cost of KRW 612,703,321 against B. Defendant A shall be the construction cost of KRW 1,217,300