1. The Defendants’ lien on the attached real estate in the case of the auction of the real estate B in the Jeonju District Court of the United States.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired the right to collateral security on the attached real estate from the bank of Korea.

B. In the auction as indicated in the order, on July 11, 2013, the Defendant limited liability company reported the right of retention by asserting that there was a claim for acquisition money and a loan to the Taelim Industry, Inc., a debtor and owner of the auction (hereinafter “Tlim Industry”), and on January 21, 2014, the Defendant A reported the right of retention by asserting that there was a claim for the installation of painting facilities and the cost of repairing the Taelim Industry.

C. At present, Defendant Han-dong operated a restaurant on the left part of the attached Form 3 of the real estate, and his employees stay in the office inside the restaurant.

Defendant A has operated machinery facilities in attached Form 1 and 2 (a studs, low-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost-lost

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 and 5, Results of on-site inspection by this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a lawsuit seeking the passive confirmation of the burden of proof of existence of a lien, where the plaintiff first asserted the fact that the cause of the right occurred, the defendant, the right holder, is liable to assert and prove the fact that the right holder is the requirement of legal relationship. Therefore, in this case, even in this case, the defendants, who claimed the lien holder, should assert and prove the existence of the secured claim which is the requirement of the lien and the requirement of establishment

3. Determination

A. A. 1) Defendant Favod’s claim against Defendant Favod is that Defendant Favod occupies 3 units of the attached property, and that Defendant Favod’s claim against Defendant Favod occupies 3 units of the attached property, and that Defendant Favod reported the lien is a claim against the attached property and related to the attached property, since it is substantially a claim against the transfer money under the above 3 units of the attached property. 2) Defendant Favod’s claim against the attached