1. It is confirmed that the Defendants’ lien on real estate listed in the separate sheet does not exist.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On May 16, 2014, at the request of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives concerning the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”), the voluntary auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) was initiated as to the instant building by the Changwon District Court Msan Branch C (hereinafter “instant auction”).

B. In the auction of this case, the Plaintiff transferred the said mortgage claim from the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives, and reported the creditor’s change on July 17, 2014, and the Defendants reported the lien on September 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff, who is responsible for proving the assertion, sought confirmation that there is no lien on the instant building by the Defendants. In such passive confirmation lawsuit, the Defendants are liable to assert and prove the elements of the legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). Therefore, the Defendants must prove and prove the requirements for establishing the right of retention.

B. From November 15, 2009, the Defendants asserted that the 20th class of the instant building was occupied by leasing KRW 20 million among the instant building and possessing the 20 million deposit. Since the Defendants paid 50,000,00 won or more to the stairs repair works, rooftop water pipeline relocation works, rooftop and building side waterproof construction works, electric seal and power distribution works, electric seal and power distribution works, the front and the third class of the building, new construction works at the entrance of the building, and existing signboard removal works, etc., the Defendants shall receive reimbursement of the 50,000,000 won or more, and thus, they shall also receive the refund of the deposit after the termination of the lease contract, they exercise the lien

C. First of all, there is no evidence to prove that the remainder of the building of this case excluding the second and third floors is possessed by the Defendants, so there is no right of retention of the Defendants.

Next, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 6 and the whole pleadings, the defendants among the buildings of this case on Nov. 15, 2009.