1. Goyang Branch A (B) of the District Court (B) (Joint) shall be the buildings listed in the separate sheet in the auction case of real estate;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since November 21, 2014, the Seodaemun-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seomun-gu”) is the owner of the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

On November 27, 2014, our Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) created an additional right to collateral security on the instant building with a claim for a loan against Seo-gu as a secured claim, and on January 5, 2016, it received a decision to commence the auction on the appointment of real estate B with the Do Government District Court Goyang-gu District Court on the basis of the above right to collateral security.

The auction case of the above real estate was conducted together with the case of the auction case of the real estate A, the Goyang-gu District Court, Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu, the High Court for the building C 1-dong, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction procedure”) each real estate auction procedure conducted together with the aforementioned consolidation. (b)

The Defendant alleged that the amount of 230 million won for the new construction of a factory was not paid from the Seodaemun-gu, and reported the lien on the instant building at the auction procedure on April 1, 2016.

C. On the other hand, the Plaintiff acquired from the Bank all the rights related to loans and collateral security established on the instant building for the purpose of securing the loans and the claims for loans against the library of the Bank.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's claim does not exist any claim for the construction cost reported by the defendant in the auction procedure of this case, and does not possess possession of the building of this case as the requirements for establishing a lien. Thus, the defendant's right of retention concerning the building of this case does not exist. Even if the defendant's above right of retention exists, the defendant renounced the right of retention on the building of this case and extinguished the right of retention. 2) The defendant's assertion that the defendant'