1. It is confirmed that the defendants' lien does not exist as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2...

1. Facts of premise;

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) contracted each of the lands listed in Schedule 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (hereinafter “instant land”) from Annex B, and completed the construction of a factory listed in Schedule 2, 8 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Gyeongnam Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gyeongnam Bank”) lent money to B managing C, and set up a collateral on the instant land and building.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security claim”). C.

The Gyeongnam Bank applied for the commencement of voluntary auction to the Changwon District Court D on September 24, 2014 for each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and received voluntary decision on commencement of auction on September 24, 2014, and the entry registration of the decision on commencement of voluntary auction was completed on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). D.

In the auction procedure of this case, the Defendants asserted that they failed to receive the construction cost for the real estate of this case and reported the lien.

1) Defendant A Co., Ltd.: 116,00,000 won for New Construction; 2) Defendant A Co., Ltd. for the 2nd century Construction (hereinafter “Defendant A’s century Construction”): Electrical construction (electric power plant, power), 58,820,00 won 3) Defendant old-gu Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant old-gu Construction”).

: Facts that there is no dispute over 61,00,000 won (based on recognition), Gap evidence 1, 2, and 11 (each entry, including serial numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Determination as to the defendants' main defense

A. The Plaintiff, who received the instant collateral security claim from the Gyeongnam Bank, sought confirmation from the Defendants that there was no lien on the instant real estate from the Defendants, and the Defendants did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants had received the instant collateral security claim from the Gyeongnam Bank.