1. It is confirmed that the Defendants’ lien does not exist with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of collateral security claims 1) E (hereinafter “E”)

(2) From August 24, 2017 to May 18, 2018, each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet as security (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) obtained loans from the Industrial Bank of Korea several times from the Industrial Bank of Korea.

(2) On December 5, 2018, the Industrial Bank of Korea concluded an asset acquisition agreement on the sale of loan claims to F Co., Ltd. to F Co., Ltd.

F Co., Ltd. transferred to the Plaintiff on December 27, 2018 with the consent of the Industrial Bank of Korea the status of purchaser under the above asset acquisition agreement, and thereafter, the Plaintiff implemented the procedure relating to the acquisition of assets, such as registration of asset acquisition, notification of transfer of claims, and publication of newspapers, in accordance with the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

B. 1) A Co., Ltd., a different creditor of E, applied for a compulsory auction on each real estate set forth in attached Tables 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and completed the compulsory auction decision on June 11, 2018, and completed the registration of the compulsory auction decision on the same day. 2) The Industrial Bank, a mortgagee of the instant real estate, applied for a voluntary auction and completed the registration of the compulsory auction decision on October 25, 2018, and completed the registration of the voluntary auction decision on the same day, and completed the registration of the voluntary auction decision on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant auction”). C.

The Defendants reported the right of retention of the Defendants filed a lien report, respectively, with the claim for construction cost against E as the secured claim in the auction procedure of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants did not have the claim for construction cost against E, and even if they did.