1. The Defendant reported the right of August 17, 2015 with respect to the auction of real estate B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang-do.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, the mortgagee of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), filed an application for voluntary auction of each of the instant real estate with the instant court on the basis of the aforementioned right to collateral security.

(B) this Court B, hereinafter referred to as “the voluntary auction of this case”).

The Defendant, who was the owner of each of the instant real estate, received a contract for the repair works for the buildings listed in the attached Table No. 11 from C, and asserted that it did not receive the construction cost of KRW 429,50,000. On August 17, 2015, the Defendant reported the lien on each of the instant real estate at the above auction procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since there is no claim for construction cost reported by the Plaintiff in the instant voluntary auction procedure, and the Defendant did not possess each of the instant real estate, there is no right of retention of the Defendant with respect to each of the instant real estate.

Even if the defendant's above lien exists, the defendant presented a letter of waiver of the lien on December 31, 2015 and renounced the above lien.

B. On December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 100 million to the Defendant, on the premise that the Defendant had a lien on each of the instant real estate.

3. Determination

A. In a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the plaintiff alleged to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the plaintiff's claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the fact that the legal relationship exists. As such, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the right of retention, the defendant must prove the possession of the subject matter and the existence of the subject matter and the related claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409, Mar. 10, 2016). B.

As to the instant case, the Ministry of Health and Welfare Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.