1. The defendant's secured claim amounting to KRW 79,230,000 as to the real estate indicated in the attached real estate.

1. The facts of recognition

1) D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D bank”)

) In order to secure the payment of the above loan claims while granting a loan to E, the building on the land of Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and the building on the land of the attached Form, owned by E, as well as the building on the land.

(2) On January 20, 2012, D Bank completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on each of the grounds that the debtor E, the maximum debt amount of KRW 1170 million, and the debtor E, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million on September 2, 2014. 2) on January 20, 2012, E delayed repayment of the principal and interest of the above loan, and E filed an application for voluntary auction of the above land and the building of this case with G District Court G on June 26, 2019, and completed the registration of the decision of commencement of voluntary auction on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure”). B.

In the instant auction procedure, on September 3, 2019, the Defendant asserted KRW 7,9230,000 as to the claim for the cost of interior construction construction construction against E and filed a lien report on the instant building.

C. On September 9, 2019, the D Bank transferred to H Co., Ltd. the above collateral security loans against H Co., Ltd.

H A. On September 27, 2019, the Plaintiff re-transfered the above collateral security loan claims against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff acquired the right to collateral security against the building around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number in case of a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) cannot be deemed to have either the Defendant built the instant building or owned the claim for construction cost against E. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant occupied the instant building. Therefore, since the Defendant failed to meet the requirements for establishing a lien, there is no right of retention claimed by the Defendant. 2) The Defendant constructed the three-story natural learning place, turfic construction, play grounds, etc. of the instant building, and KRW 7,9230,000,000 to E.