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

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2012, the Plaintiff, as a collateral security, filed an application for voluntary auction to this court B (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction”). On May 11, 2012, the said court rendered a decision to commence voluntary auction on June 21, 2012. (2) On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”) with the competent court D with regard to the real estate stated in the attached list 7, 8, and 9 with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Da3740, Seosan-si, the Daejeon District Court for the debtor C, which was the branch court of Seosan branch of the Daejeon District Court (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”). On July 2, 2013, the said court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”).

B. On May 25, 2012, the Defendant, who is engaged in civil and construction business with the trade name of “E” in the Defendant’s report of lien, filed a lien report with the above auction court by asserting that: (a) on July 9, 2013, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was not paid KRW 299,00,000 in the compulsory auction procedure of the instant case; and (b) on July 9, 2013, the Defendant filed a lien report with

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is false. Since the Defendant did not occupy the instant real estate at the time of the decision to commence voluntary auction of the instant case, there is no right of retention for the Defendant’s assertion regarding the instant real estate. 2) The Defendant installed containers to receive the payment for the remainder of construction works against C, and occupied the instant real estate, and exercises a legitimate right of retention.

B. 1) In a lawsuit seeking passive confirmation, if the Plaintiff asserted to deny the fact that the cause of the right occurred by specifying the Plaintiff’s claim first, the Defendant, the right holder, is liable to assert and prove the fact that the right holder is the requirement of the right relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998).