1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2002, our bank completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 720,000,000, and the debtor B and C. After the purchase of each of the instant real estate by Nonparty D, the registration of alteration of the right to collateral security made up of the debtor D on November 29, 2002 was completed.

B. On January 16, 2017, Korea Bank, Inc. filed an application for a voluntary auction of the instant real estate with the Incheon District Court E, and filed a judgment of voluntary commencement of auction on January 16, 2017. On June 29, 2017, the Defendant completed the move-in report under Article 501 among the instant real estate, and filed a report of lien on July 10, 2017, on the said auction procedure with the amount of KRW 150,000,000 for all the instant real estate as the secured claim.

C. Meanwhile, around April 17, 2017, Nonparty A’s limited liability company specializing in the secondary securitization took over the above collateral security claims from the Bank of Korea, Korea, and the Plaintiff took over the above collateral security claims again from A’s limited liability company specializing in the secondary securitization. On March 6, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired the above collateral security claims again from A’s limited liability company specializing in the secondary securitization.

After withdrawal of the above existing auction procedure, the Plaintiff applied for a new auction of real estate to the Incheon District Court F, and rendered a new decision to commence the auction of real estate on April 26, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, each entry of evidence Nos. 10 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties asserted that the defendant asserted the right of retention on the real estate of this case, and the principal, as the owner of the real estate of this case, was responsible for the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior installation and construction cost. However, this assertion itself is an investment cost invested for one's own business purposes. Thus, the right of retention cannot be established, and the construction cost paid around 2003 is a claim.