1. Claim for construction cost of KRW 78,000,000 as security shall be limited to each immovable listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a loan against C, etc. and was sentenced to a judgment that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 163,945,581 won and 150,000,000 won with 30% interest per annum from May 21, 2015 to the date of full payment”

(Seoul Northern District Court 2015da22455). The above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) owned by C, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction on January 10, 2018.

(Cheongju District Court D.C.)

The defendant is on November 9, 2018.

In the procedure of compulsory auction as stated in Paragraph (1), a lien was reported to the effect that “to exercise a lien that possesses each of the real estates of this case until the repayment of the claim for construction price of KRW 78,00,000 concerning each of the real estates of this case is made.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the plaintiff alleged to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the plaintiff's claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of assertion and burden of proof as to the facts constituting the requisite of the legal relationship. As such, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the right of retention, the defendant must assert and prove the existence of the right of retention, which is the element of the right.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409 Decided March 10, 2016). There is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant holds a claim for the construction cost of KRW 78,00,000 regarding each of the instant real estate, and that the Defendant occupied each of the instant real estate.

Therefore, there is no lien for the defendant who claims for construction cost of KRW 78,00,000 for each real estate listed in the attached list as the secured claim.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion