1. The defendant in the case of auction for the rent of the real estate B in the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court on the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 26, 2009, Nonparty National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “Non-Party Agricultural Cooperative Federation”) entered into a loan agreement with Non-Party C (hereinafter “the instant loan”) and was set up a collateral security amount of KRW 660,000,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

B. Since C did not repay the loan, Nonparty Nonghyup filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant real estate and received a decision of voluntary auction from this Court on August 26, 2010.

(B) The auction procedure of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure”).

Since then, the plaintiff transferred all of the collateral security and the secured debt from the non-party agricultural cooperative, and completed the report on the change to the above auction court on January 13, 201.

On the other hand, on September 24, 2010, the Defendant filed a lien report with the above auction court, asserting that there was a claim for construction cost equivalent to KRW 285,00,000 against C, by conducting remodeling construction for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant construction”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant not only did the instant construction work but also did the construction work.

Even if the defendant's wife paid the construction price to the defendant on behalf of the defendant in lieu of C, there is no claim for the construction price against D as the secured claim for indemnity against D, apart from the existence of the claim for indemnity against D, and there is no evidence to deem that the defendant occupied the real estate in this case, and therefore, the existence of the right of retention cannot be recognized.

Even if not,

Even if Nonparty 3 did not assert the existence of a lien at the time of conducting an appraisal of the instant real estate before Nonparty 3 granted a loan to Nonparty C, Nonparty 3 provided a loan to Nonparty 3.