1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In order to secure a claim for a loan of KRW 2.7 billion to Nonparty 1 C (hereinafter “debtor church”), the Plaintiff set up a collateral security (the maximum debt amount of the collateral security was changed to KRW 3.59 billion on December 20, 201, the maximum debt amount of the debt amount of KRW 3.788 billion on February 15, 201, as stipulated in Article 18960, which was received on February 15, 201, with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the obligor church (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. As to the instant real estate, the auction procedure was commenced on November 22, 2013, upon the Plaintiff’s application based on the instant collateral security, with respect to the instant real estate. The auction procedure was completed on November 22, 2013, and the said senior registry office completed the registration of the voluntary decision on commencement of auction as the receipt of November 25, 2013.

(hereinafter “Voluntary Auction”) C.

In the instant voluntary auction procedure, on February 2014, the Defendant reported to the auction court that there was a lien to secure 369,392,753 won claims for the supply of ESD lighting and the remainder of the installation works to the obligor church.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 4-2, each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In order to exercise the right of retention, the possession must be carried out and the possession must continue.

The requirements for establishment of a lien and the possession, which is the requirements for existence of a lien, are not direct or indirect possession, but possession, which is the requirements for existence of a lien. However, in light of the fact that a lien is the right to indirectly enforce the debtor's repayment by attracting the object, it does not constitute possession as a requirement for a lien if the direct occupant is the debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27236, Apr. 11, 2008). In full view of the arguments stated in the evidence No. 5 through No. 7, the defendant is the defendant of this case.