1. With respect to real estate listed in the annex:

A. The right of retention at Defendant D’s KRW 780,000,000 as the secured claim is b.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a special purpose company established in accordance with the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and is a person who takes over the right to collateral security and the secured claim from the Nonparty Industrial Bank of Korea, the mortgagee of the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On January 15, 2020, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate to Suwon District Court E. On February 20, 2020, and received a voluntary decision to commence auction from the said court on February 20, 2020

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

In the instant auction procedure, the Defendants filed a lien registration statement with the following contents.

B [Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants did not have the secured debt of the right of retention as asserted by the Defendants, and there was no relation between the instant real estate and the said real estate. Since the Defendants did not occupy the instant real estate as the lien holder, there is no above lien of the Defendants.

B. The Defendants have the same secured claim as the Defendants reported in the instant auction procedure, and the Defendants currently possess the instant real estate and exercise their right of retention.

3. In a passive confirmation lawsuit, where the Plaintiff asserts that the cause for the occurrence of an obligation exists by specifying the Plaintiff’s claim first, the Defendant, the obligee, bears the burden of asserting and proving the facts constituting the requisite of the right relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409, Mar. 10, 2016). In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a right relationship, the claimant of the right to retention ought to assert and prove the facts constituting the establishment and existence of the right and possession of the pertinent real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da84971, Jan. 29, 2015).