1. There is no lien on each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 to 5 and 7 to Defendant A.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 19, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a loan transaction agreement with D and lent KRW 315 million to D on August 24, 2011 pursuant to the said loan transaction agreement.

B. On August 24, 201, in order to guarantee the Plaintiff’s obligation for the above loan, D entered into a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff on August 24, 201 with respect to 229.1 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On January 10, 2014, D entered into an additional mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the future of the Plaintiff as the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon Branch of the Incheon District Court (1375) received on January 13, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.

On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction based on the instant right to collateral security, and the Incheon District Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence auction on the instant building (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) with F. On the same day, the decision to commence voluntary auction was registered.

In the auction procedure of this case on August 22, 2014, the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into a contract for construction work of officetels with D and filed a lien on the premise that the claim for construction cost of KRW 44787,00,000,00 as a secured claim was located, and Defendant C acquired the right to KRW 100,000,00 from the Defendant Company as a claim for construction cost, and claimed that the possession of KRW 402 and 502 of the instant building was transferred, and reported the lien.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Not only can it be doubtful whether the claim for construction price as asserted by the Plaintiff Company exists, but also the Defendant Company occupies the building of this case.