1. It is confirmed that the Defendants’ lien does not exist with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 28, 2016, the Plaintiff, a mortgagee, completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (734 square meters in Seocheon-si, E), which is the maximum debt amount of No. 570,700,000, and subsequently, on May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 12, 2018, the Plaintiff received a decision to commence voluntary auction from this court. On May 31, 2018, the Defendants reported a lien with the effect that they occupy the instant building until the enforcement court receives a claim for the construction material price.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3

2. The right of retention ceases to exist due to the loss of possession (Article 328 of the Civil Act). The Defendants appeared at the date of pleading to the effect that they did not occupy the building of this case while having a claim for construction material costs. There is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendants occupied the building of this case.

Therefore, there is no lien on the instant building of the Defendants.

Nevertheless, as long as the Defendants do not seem to have withdrawn the report of the lien in the auction procedure, and the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of the lien against the Defendants.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.