1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On July 30, 2009, the Industrial Bank of Korea established the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”) (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”) (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and filed an application for an auction with the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch of the Republic of Korea, as the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”).

Accordingly, on October 13, 2011, a voluntary decision to commence auction was made, and the entry registration of the decision to commence auction was completed on the instant real estate on the 20th of the same month.

(hereinafter) The auction procedure that had been proceeded with the above circumstances is "the auction procedure of this case" and the registration of the decision on commencing auction of this case is "registration of the decision on commencing auction of this case".

In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant filed a lien on December 1, 201, asserting that he/she had a claim of KRW 498,000,000 for the construction cost of the instant real estate against A on December 1, 201.

C. On December 20, 201, the Industrial Bank of Korea transferred claims secured by the instant collateral security to the Plaintiff, and notified A of the assignment of claims on the 21st day of the same month and the 22th day of the same month.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (if there are various numbers, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for construction price claim is false, and the Defendant did not occupy the instant real estate at the time of the completion of the registration of the decision on commencing auction of the instant case. Thus, the Defendant’s lien on the instant real estate does not exist.

B. The Defendant alleged that the instant real estate had been occupied by the Defendant on November 20, 209, since the Defendant completed the construction of gas station buildings and the extension and interior construction of gas station buildings among the instant real estate from A on November 20, 2009, by being awarded a contract for the construction cost of KRW 528,000,000, and was not paid the construction cost of KRW 498,000,000, out of the construction cost. Therefore, the Defendant