1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 1.9 billion to the non-party Osung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party Co., Ltd.”). On May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party Co., Ltd.”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list owned by the non-party Co., Ltd. as collateral (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

B. As the non-party company failed to repay the above loans, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant real estate, and on April 3, 2014, the voluntary auction procedure on the instant real estate A with the Changwon District Court closely-Support A (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) began.

C. In the instant auction procedure, on April 29, 2014, the Defendant filed a lien report by asserting that the portion of the factory building indicated in attached Tables 2 through 4, among the instant real estate, was not paid KRW 220 million from the proceeds of “power-driven Line and the 2nd floor construction,” and filed a lien report by asserting that on November 17, 2014, the Defendant was not paid KRW 1,250,000,000,000, out of the proceeds of “factory-Newly built construction works” of the instant real estate, KRW 1,75,000,000,000, out of KRW 1.25,50

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for confirmation of non-existence of lien

A. The right of retention asserted by the plaintiff by the defendant is a false lien that does not exist any claim for the actual construction cost, and the defendant has a claim for the construction cost against the non-party company.

Even if the defendant did not possess the real estate of this case, the right of retention is not established.

In addition, since the defendant submitted to the plaintiff a waiver of lien and a statement of field name around May 20, 2013, the defendant cannot claim the lien concerning the real estate in this case.

B. (1) In a lawsuit for passive confirmation, the Plaintiff first specified the claim and caused the obligation.