1. It is confirmed that the Defendants’ lien does not exist with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On July 29, 201, the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. implemented a loan to the innovative Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor”) and created a collateral security on each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the debtor company (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff acquired a claim against the obligor company from the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. and acquired the aforementioned collateral security.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for auction on July 4, 2013 for the auction of each of the instant real estate as the debtor company did not pay a loan, and the auction decision was in progress on July 4, 2013, and the Jung-gu District Court C real estate auction case (hereinafter “instant auction case”).

Defendant A entered into a new construction contract with the debtor company on each of the instant real estate and completed the construction work, and filed a lien on October 26, 2014 in the instant auction case, asserting that: (a) Defendant B completed the new construction work of the above factory building, but did not receive KRW 121,00,000,000, out of the total construction cost of KRW 783,20,000; and (b) Defendant A filed a lien on October 26, 2014, on the instant auction case, on the ground that he did not receive KRW 275,00,000 for the construction cost of the above new construction work; (c) Defendant A completed the new construction work of the guard room among the above construction works, but did not receive KRW 275,00,000 for the said construction cost.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (if there is a satisfy number, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants asserted does not exist any secured claim of the lien, and exist even if so.

Even if the statute of limitations has already expired.

In addition, the Defendants did not possess each of the instant real estate, and the Defendants possessed the instant real estate.

Even if the Defendants were to commence the auction of this case, they were to do so.