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

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on trust with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Daelim Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Daelim Industry”).

B. However, around April 10, 2015, the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction based on the right of retention to this court B with respect to the instant real estate and received a decision on voluntary auction from this court on April 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that “the Defendant did not establish the Defendant’s lien on the instant real estate since he had not occupied the instant real estate since before September 30, 2014, which had completed the registration of the trust on the instant real estate,” and sought confirmation of the absence of such lien.

Around September 20, 201, the Defendant argued to the effect that “Around September 20, 201, he received a lien from C on the instant real estate and continued possession of the instant real estate from around that time. However, since the large forest industry was unfairly deprived of the Defendant’s possession on or around May 2013, the Defendant’s lien on the instant real estate was still in existence without extinguishment of the Defendant’s lien on September 30, 2014.”

B. Determination based on the above argument by the Defendant, the possession of the instant real estate is the requisite for the establishment of the lien and the requirement for the existence of the right to retention, and even according to the above argument by the Defendant, the Defendant was deprived of possession of the instant real estate by the large forest industry around May 2013, which was prior to September 30, 2014, and thus, barring any special circumstance to deem that the Defendant restored possession before September 30, 2014, the right to retention of the instant real estate was extinguished.

Therefore, there is no lien for the defendant's real estate in this case.