The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

The auction of the building of this case and the defendant's lien report

A. On August 28, 2012, B obtained a loan of KRW 610,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and created a right to collateral security on the instant building (the building consisting of 101 Dong and 102 Dong) as security.

B. On September 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for an auction of the instant building (hereinafter “instant auction”) with the original district court located in Chuncheon District Court (hereinafter “Skcheon District Court”). On September 11, 2013, the same court rendered a decision to commence a voluntary auction and completed the entry registration thereof on the same day.

C. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the instant building was entitled to the lien and reported its rights.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 10, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 10, and the plaintiff's assertion by the parties concerned as to the existence of lien as a whole of the pleadings, the defendant did not actually have a claim for construction price related to the building of this case, and did not possess the building of this case before the commencement of auction.

The Defendant’s assertion that the construction work of the instant building was completed, but it was still paid the construction cost, and thus, it was occupied by posting a banner informing the existence of lien on the outside of the instant building and making a move-in report prior to the commencement of the auction of this case.

Judgment

In full view of the evidence No. 8-1, evidence No. 8-2-1, evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 3-1, and evidence No. 3-5, the Defendant spent construction expenses for the construction of the building of this case, and there is room to acknowledge the fact that the building of this case is currently occupied.

However, in order for the Defendant to claim the right of retention against the Plaintiff, a mortgagee of the instant building, the Defendant must prove that he lawfully occupied the instant building prior to the commencement of the auction of the instant case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da22050, Aug. 25, 2006). Evidence No. 7-1, 2, and 7.