1. The defendant's lien that takes 935,00,000 won as the secured claim in regard to the real estate listed in the attached list as the secured claim is.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 7, 2017, C received a decision to commence compulsory auction from the Cheongju District Court E on December 7, 2017 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by a medical corporation D (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the entry in the decision to commence auction was completed on December 8, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure”). B.

On June 1, 2018, the Defendant filed a lien with respect to the instant auction procedure by asserting that it has a claim for construction cost of KRW 935,00,000 regarding the instant real estate against D.

C. On June 19, 2018, F Co., Ltd., the mortgagee of the instant real estate (hereinafter “F”) received a voluntary decision to commence the auction on the instant real estate from Cheongju District Court G on June 19, 2018, and on June 20, 2018, the registration of the decision to commence the auction was completed.

On June 27, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a transfer contract with H Co., Ltd. for assets acquisition and received F’s claim against H as collateral security.

In addition, the Plaintiff acquired the said collateral security by registering the said fact with the Financial Services Commission pursuant to Article 8 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act (hereinafter “Asset-Backed Securitization Act”), and notified D of the assignment of the said credit twice in two or more daily newspapers pursuant to Article 7 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and publicly notified two or more daily newspapers. On July 20, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the change of the mortgagee at

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1 did not recognize the defendant's claim for the construction price and the possession of the real estate in this case, and even if it is recognized, the defendant's right of retention cannot be asserted against the plaintiff as the mortgagee because it was established after the registration of the entry in the auction procedure in this case was completed. Thus, the defendant's right of retention is nonexistent.