1. It is confirmed that there is no lien on each real estate listed in the separate sheet attached to Defendant C by Defendant C.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around August 2011, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) registered the creation of a neighboring mortgage on the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the secured debt against E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

B. D, upon E’s delay in repayment of the debt, filed an application for voluntary auction procedure on the instant real estate, and on January 13, 2016, the Suwon District Court F opened the voluntary auction procedure on real estate.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

The plaintiff acquired all claims and collateral security against E from D. D.

Meanwhile, the Defendants did not report the right to retention in the instant auction procedure, but at the time of the investigation into the present real estate on February 2, 2016, Defendant C, as the representative director of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), stated that the Defendants occupied the instant real estate and exercised the right to retention, as they did not receive the construction cost for the instant real estate from E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for construction price claim against E does not exist, and there is no secured claim of lien on the instant real estate, and furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants occupied the instant real estate prior to the date of the decision on commencing the instant auction. Therefore, there is no lien of the Defendants.

B. Around January 2013, Defendant B’s assertion that the Defendants had not received construction payment from E, even though they concluded a contract for the construction of the tent, steel frame, and cryp production and installation of the instant real estate, and completed the construction work.

Accordingly, the Defendants continued to possess and use the instant real estate, which had been the E office from around 2013 to the present.