1. The defendant's claim for construction cost of KRW 540,00,000 for B forest land of KRW 16,159 square meters in Won-si is a secured claim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant forest land with a mortgagee and a superficiary of the forest land as stated in paragraph (1) of the Disposition C owned by C (hereinafter “instant forest”). This court rendered a decision to commence auction on October 2, 2013 and completed the registration of voluntary decision to commence auction on the same day, and the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction”) is in progress at the court D (hereinafter “instant auction”).

B. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant reported a lien to this court as of October 29, 2013, asserting that he/she had a claim for construction price of KRW 540,000,000 under the said contract as a person who entered into a civil engineering contract with C on the instant forest.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A2, 5, and 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In a lawsuit for passive confirmation of judgment criteria, if the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff specified the first claim in order to deny the facts of the cause of the right, the defendant bears the burden of proving the facts of the requirement of the right relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). Thus, in this case, the defendant, who claimed that the lien holder is the lien holder, bears the burden of proving the elements

The requirements for establishment of lien under Article 320 of the Civil Act, and possession, which is the requirements for existence of lien, refers to the objective relationship in which the object is deemed to be a factual control over the person in light of social norms. At this time, factual control is not limited to physical real control, but is not limited to the control over the object in light of the time and spatial relationship with the object, principal right relationship, possibility of exclusion from control of others, etc., the decision should be made in conformity

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530 Decided September 24, 2009, etc.). B.

Although the defendant asserts that the forest of this case occupies the forest of this case, the forest of this case belongs to the defendant's factual control.