1. As to a building newly built on the land of 665 square meters in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff Co., Ltd.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 9, 2019, with respect to the instant land, in the Daejeon District Court Decision E Real Estate Voluntary Auction case (hereinafter “instant voluntary Auction Procedure”) located in Seoan-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, the Daejeon District Court for the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On December 27, 2018, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) reported the right of retention on the ground that “F was awarded a contract for construction of multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) where the former owner of the instant land was the representative director, and the construction cost of the instant building was completed up to KRW 1 billion until March 31, 2018, on the ground that “F did not pay the said construction cost.”

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

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant did not occupy or renounced the building of this case which was under construction at the time of the voluntary decision to commence the auction on the land of this case, and the defendant's claim for construction price is merely 220 million won different from the content of the lien report. Since the defendant filed a false lien report, the defendant is seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the lien.

B. 1) The defendant's main main purport of the safety defense is to confirm the absence of a lien even though the plaintiff can seek the delivery of the building to the defendant. The lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. 2) The defendant reported a lien in the voluntary auction procedure of this case. The defendant did not actually occupy the building of this case.