1. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with respect to real estate stated in the attached list in the case of a voluntary auction for real estate located in Daegu District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mortgagee of a right to collateral security with respect to each immovable property listed in the separate sheet owned by E (hereinafter “instant real property”), which is the maximum debt amount of 299,00,000 won.

B. Around May 2, 2018, upon the Plaintiff’s application, a voluntary auction procedure was initiated in this Court regarding the instant real estate.

C. Around January 10, 2019, the Defendant reported a lien at the above auction procedure, whereby the claim for construction cost of KRW 610,240,126 against E is the secured claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 (including virtual number), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of the right as in the instant case, if the Plaintiff asserted to deny the fact of the cause of the right by specifying the Plaintiff’s claim first, the Defendant, claiming the right holder, bears the burden of proving the fact of the requirement of the right relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). Therefore, the Defendant, claiming the right holder of the instant real estate, is liable to prove and prove the requirements for establishing the right of retention.

B. As to the instant case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant possessed the instant real estate only with the evidence submitted by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Defendant, even though the Defendant had originally occupied the instant real estate, but the Defendant and his/her agents were legally detained on August 10, 2017, asserting that E, etc. was deprived of possession of the corrective device, etc. on or around August 11, 2017. As such, it is evident that the Defendant did not occupy the instant real estate even according to such assertion.

In addition, according to Articles 204(3) and 205(2) of the Civil Code, the right to claim against the person who has been deprived of or interfered with the possession shall be one year from the date on which the person has deprived of or has been deprived of the possession, or from the date on which the act of interference with the possession is terminated.