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 15, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 581,000,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the non-party company (hereinafter “the instant building”) as collateral for a loan claim against EMA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SA”), and on the same day lent KRW 414,000,000 to the non-party company on the same day.

B. On November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with the Daejeon District Court A on the basis of the foregoing collateral security as the non-party company failed to repay the above loan obligations, and the decision on commencement of auction was issued by the above court on November 19, 201, and the entry registration was completed on

C. On April 25, 2013, where the Defendant spent KRW 23,100,000 to the repair work and the artificial construction cost of the instant building, the Defendant filed a lien report with the court of auction on April 25, 2013, asserting that there was a lessee’s right to demand reimbursement and the right to demand appurtenances under Articles 626 and 646 of the Civil Act, and that there was a lien on the instant building with each of the instant claims as the secured claim.

On the other hand, on May 13, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement between the Nonparty Company and the Non-Party Company with the terms of deposit of KRW 40,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 900,000, and the period from April 2, 2012 to April 2, 2014 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4-7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted 1 of the parties that the expenses paid by the defendant were incurred by the defendant to rent the building of this case and use and profit from the building of this case. In light of its contents, the defendant's building of this case is the office for the toilet repair work, the sea beta, the fish container installation, the reinforcement glass, the Kcas, etc.