1. It is confirmed that the Defendants’ lien does not exist with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2...

Basic Facts

The funeral agricultural cooperative, as a creditor of the right to collateral security against C on August 31, 2015, received voluntary decision on the commencement of auction D with the Changwon District Court rendered a decision on the commencement of auction on August 31, 2015 as a creditor of the right to collateral security against C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and accordingly, the auction procedure is in progress.

On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff received a claim for the right to collateral security against C from the KOFFC, and on February 2, 2016, received the right to collateral security from the KOFC. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application to resume the auction procedure with the KOFC on February 3, 2016.

During the instant auction procedure on November 11, 2015, Defendant A filed a report on the right as the lien holder at the instant auction procedure, taking the remainder of KRW 120,000,000 among the construction cost of the instant real estate as the secured claim on December 28, 2015, and the remainder of KRW 120,000,000 among the construction cost of the instant real estate as the secured claim on December 28, 2015.

【Judgment as to the ground for recognition, without any dispute, A1 through 4, and the ground for a claim as to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants did not have any claim with respect to the subject matter of the lien, or that even if Defendant B’s claim was established, the extinctive prescription has expired even if the claim was established, and that possession of the Defendants was not recognized, there was no lien on the subject matter of the lien, and sought confirmation of the absence of such a claim.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a lien, the responsibility to assert and prove the existence of the object of the lien and the related claim is against the defendants.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409, Mar. 10, 2016). Moreover, the requirements for establishing a lien under Article 320 of the Civil Act and the possession of an object, which is the requirement for existence, are the objective relationship that appears to belong to a person’s factual control in light of social norms. In such a case, factual control is not necessarily limited to physical and practical control over an object.