1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are creditors against A, the owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) and the right to collateral security on each of the instant real estate.

B. On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff through the Fisheries Cooperatives filed an application for voluntary auction on part of each of the instant real estate, and on June 12, 2014, the auction case of real estate was commenced under this Court B.

C. On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff NLA filed an application for voluntary auction on the part of each of the instant real estate, and on January 28, 2015, the instant case of voluntary auction on real estate was commenced under this Court C.

Each of the above auction cases was overlapped with D in this Court. On February 13, 2015, the defendant filed a lien report on each of the real estate of this case, alleging that the construction cost of the interior finishing construction was not paid from the owner of the building on February 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 2, 6, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the Plaintiff alleged that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the Plaintiff’s claim first, the Defendant, the obligee, bears the responsibility to assert and prove the facts constituting the elements of legal relationship. As such, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a lien, the Defendant ought to assert and prove the subject matter of the lien, which is the elements of the lien, and the existence

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409, Mar. 10, 2016). As to the instant case, the Defendant asserted that a lien exists as to each of the instant real estate, by asserting that the Health Center, the Defendant did not receive the construction cost of the interior finishing construction, and that it was not paid KRW 585,00,000,000, and there is no evidence to acknowledge

Notwithstanding the demands of this Court to assert and prove, the Defendant did not assert and prove any fact of the requirements of the right of retention concerning each of the instant real estate.