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

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On August 30, 2013, the Industrial Bank of Korea completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) around the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,008,000,000 on each real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by the CFT Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CFT Engineering”) (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Industrial Bank of Korea applied for the auction of the instant real estate to Suwon District Court A with respect to the instant real estate based on the instant collateral security, and the said court rendered a voluntary decision to commence auction on September 7, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

On December 6, 2016, when the instant auction procedure was in progress, the Industrial Bank of Korea transferred to the Korea Securities Finance Corporation the claims and collateral security against COS engineering, and the Korea Securities Finance Corporation transferred the claims and collateral security against COS engineering to the Plaintiff on December 28, 2016.

In the instant auction procedure, Defendant ECo Co., Ltd. (former trade name before the change: CCo., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant ECo”) reported the right to retention on the instant real estate on August 8, 2017, on the ground that KRW 53,000,000 of the internal facility construction claim regarding the instant real estate as the secured claim, and the Defendant Gung Electrical Technology Foundation (hereinafter “Defendant Gung Electrical Technology Foundation”) reported the right to retention on August 14, 2017, with regard to the instant real estate as the secured claim.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-7 business, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Defendants’ assertion 1) did not exist the secured claim of the right of retention claimed by the Defendants, and even if exist, the Defendants did not possess the instant real estate. Thus, there is no lien by the Defendants as to the instant real estate. 2) The Defendants’ Eco has the claim for the construction cost of KRW 53,000,000 regarding the instant real estate.