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. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(However, with the exception of the part concerning the separately determined co-defendant A in the first instance trial, “Defendant A” is brought to “Defendant A” as “Defendant”). 2. Summary of the parties’ assertion and the basic legal principle of judgment.

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant does not possess the secured debt of the right of retention and does not possess the real estate of this case, so the defendant's right of retention concerning the real estate of this case does not exist, and seek confirmation thereof.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the right of retention exists for the defendant, since the defendant occupies the real estate of this case with the claim for the construction cost arising with respect to the real estate of this case as

C. In a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the Plaintiff asserts to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation arises by specifying the Plaintiff’s claim first, the Defendant, the obligee, bears the responsibility to assert and prove the fact that the legal relationship exists. As such, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the right of retention, the existence of a claim related to the subject matter of the right of retention and a related claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da9409, Mar. 10, 2016). The Defendant ought to assert and prove that the continuous possession of the subject matter

Therefore, this paper examines whether the Defendant had secured the right of retention related to the instant real estate, and whether the Defendant has continuously occupied the instant real estate from before the completion of the registration of the entry of the decision on commencing the auction of the instant real estate until the closing date of the argument in the instant case.

3. Determination as to whether the secured claim under the lien exists

A. Nonparty G alleged by the Defendant was aware of the estimation of machinery repair, etc. located in the instant real estate in H before the bid is awarded, but it is anticipated that excessive expenses exceeding KRW 400 million will be paid.