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 reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition and modification of the following. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Along with the second 5 pages of the part added and modified, the phrase “ April 15, 2016” shall be changed to “ April 8, 2016,” and the phrase “each of the following shares of each of the instant land” (as to the land specified in paragraph 2 of the attached Table, 58/132 shares; as to the land specified in paragraph 3 of the same Table, 20/68 shares) shall be added.

2. The following shall be added between the 10th parallel and the 11th parallel:

On October 28, 2016, the Defendant reported the lien with the amount of KRW 128,00,000 as the secured claim at the instant auction procedure, wherein the Defendant reported the lien. The following was added to the two pages of the 12th page “.”

On January 16, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the supplementary registration prior to the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage by the non-party union. The two pages of the 19th "FYY 6 October 2016" are changed to " October 5, 2016."

4. The following shall be added to the last place below:

“The lien holder may not claim the successful bidder to pay the secured debt, but may refuse the delivery of the real estate, which is the object of the lien, until his/her secured debt is repaid, so real estate for auction purposes is likely to be successful bid. Accordingly, the risk that the amount of dividend of the mortgagee who applied for auction is reduced or the sale of the real estate is impossible by reporting a large amount of lien compared with the value of the object of auction would make the risk unstable in the legal status of the mortgagee in the auction procedure. Therefore, the legal interest (the benefit of confirmation) is recognized against the Defendant who reported the lien to the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee, seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the right of retention against the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da9409, Mar.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion must be accepted on the ground of the reasons.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.