1. Attached to the Defendant’s report on September 18, 2014 regarding the auction case of the real estate B in Changwon District Court smuggling B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a creditor of Nonparty C, filed an application for voluntary auction on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by Nonparty C (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) and commenced the voluntary auction procedure on January 22, 2013 with the Changwon District Court Stream Branch B.

B. From September 18, 2014, the Defendant reported the right of retention to the instant real estate at the above auction procedure, asserting that “The instant real estate from April 1, 2009 to October 2, 2009 requires construction of underground water facilities, ground tent construction, and storage of general products, and it did not receive KRW 450 million from C, thereby occupying the instant real estate.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including additional number), Gap evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost as asserted by the Defendant is based on a false claim without specific evidentiary materials, and the Defendant actually holds a claim for construction cost.

Even if the construction completion date, the three-year extinctive prescription period from October 2, 2009 was expired, and the defendant has no possession of the real estate in this case for the exercise of lien.

3. Determination

A. In a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the Plaintiff asserts that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the Plaintiff’s claim first, the Defendant bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the requirement of legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). As such, even in the instant case, the Defendant’s assertion that the lien holder is the lien holder should assert and prove the existence of the secured claim, which is the requirement of the lien, and the possession of the instant

B. First, as to the existence of the claim for the construction cost, which is the secured claim of the right of retention claimed by the Defendant, each entry and image of Eul Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) are difficult to believe it as it is, or the above evidence alone is insufficient for the Defendant to establish groundwater facilities and warehouses in the instant real estate.