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

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 18, 201, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B and C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to each of the following real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), as the head of the Daejeon District Court’s official housing district court, No. 9980, Apr. 18, 201, the maximum debt amount of KRW 390,000

B. On June 21, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate, etc. to Daejeon District Court Diplomatic Branch E, and the said court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on June 22, 2017.

C. From April 2010, the Defendant operated a restaurant in the name of “F restaurant” in some of the instant real estate from around April 201, and reported a lien with respect to the said real estate as the secured claim, alleging that the Defendant spent the necessary and beneficial expenses as the lessee of a part of the instant real estate during the said voluntary auction procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 and 3 (if there are provisional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. 1) The Defendant asserts that the right of retention is held as a secured claim, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the right of retention, because it was remarkably impossible to use the instant real estate as it was at the time of the transfer, and thus, the Defendant has been paying for the necessary or beneficial expenses of KRW 6,754,00,00 for the instant real estate. As such, the Defendant asserts that the right of retention is held as a secured claim for the instant real estate. 2) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the right of retention, the Defendant must assert and prove the existence of the subject matter

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409, Mar. 10, 2016). Meanwhile, the necessary cost for which the lessee may claim reimbursement to the lessor is spent for the preservation of the object and for the improvement of the object that is useful.