1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, except for the supplement of a judgment as to the defendant's priority in the trial, and thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Supplementary Parts

A. In full view of the evidence and the following circumstances revealed prior to the possession of 401, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 19, and 20, and Eul evidence Nos. 8, 19, and 20, the testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings by the witness of this court, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant directly occupied No. 401 or indirectly occupied through a third party, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① On June 3, 2015, at the time of the Plaintiff’s on-site investigation to create a security right, 401 appears to have been unfolded without a person claiming a lien or allowing access.

② On February 23, 2017, there was no indication that the possessor was absent at the time of the investigation into the current status with respect to No. 401 of the Daejeon District Court’s Daejeon District Court’s Branch Branch Branch enforcement officer, and there was no indication that the Defendant was exercising the right of retention. There was no person who is holding the right of retention even in the appraisal report on No. 401 prepared on March 4, 2017.

③ On May 24, 2017, S stated that at the time of moving into the Republic of Korea on May 24, 2017, S had a notice of the exercise of the right of retention attached to S. On May 24, 201, and according to the video of the evidence No. 5, S stated in the 401 on the 401 suspend entry without permission of 401.

However, in light of the fact that at the time of the investigation into the current status of the Daejeon District Court's 401 enforcement officer of the Daejeon District Court's Dacheon Branch's 401 on February 23, 2017, the above notice has not been identified, and it is highly likely that the seizure has become effective after the completion of the registration of the entry of the order to commence the auction of this case and the on-site investigation has been conducted.