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

2...

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a person who owns 1/3 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from December 20, 2013, and is the debtor of the Suwon District Court C and DD real estate auction case regarding the instant real estate.

In the above real estate auction case, the defendant reported the lien with the claim for construction cost of KRW 519,800,000 as the preserved claim.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including all of the serial numbers) and the purport of the entire argument of the plaintiff as to the purport of the whole pleadings is false, and thus, the content of the standard contract documents submitted by the defendant when the defendant reported the right of retention is false. Thus, the defendant's claim for construction price is nonexistent, and even if the claim

Therefore, there is no defendant's lien on the instant real estate.

Judgment

In a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the plaintiff asserts to deny the fact that the cause of the debt arises by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the responsibility for assertion and certification concerning the requirement of the legal relationship.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409, Mar. 10, 2016). The statement of evidence No. 3 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant incurred a claim for construction price upon completion of the said construction work after being awarded a contract for remodeling the instant real estate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion seeking to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. Even if the Defendant’s claim for construction cost exists upon reporting the right of retention, according to the statement in the evidence No. 3, the Defendant is recognized to have reported the right of retention on May 30, 2006, while the construction on the instant real estate was completed on May 30, 2006. The above claim for construction cost is a claim to which the short-term extinctive prescription of three years applies pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and