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

2...

1. Under the underlying facts, the Plaintiff was a mortgagee on each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the lands of this case”) and was in progress with the procedure of compulsory auction E by the Jung-gu District Court upon application of the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation before filing a voluntary auction application for each of the lands of this case.

On June 15, 2018, the mid-term entry registration of decision on voluntary auction has been completed, and the auction procedure is in progress.

In the above auction procedure on August 1, 2018, the defendant submitted a lien report with the following contents to the auction court:

The name of the right of retention report: The construction period from September 6, 2015 to November 17, 2015: The construction period of KRW 442,00,000 ( KRW 442,00: from September 6, 2015 to November 17, 2015: From November 17, 2015 to August 1, 2018, the access to others is prohibited and the site is occupied.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is unclear as to who claims are payable as the secured debt of the right of retention on each of the instant land.

Even if the defendant has the claim for the construction cost.

Even if the claim for construction cost due to penta construction is not recognized to be consistent with each land of this case, and it did not meet the requirements for establishing a lien because it did not occupy the land of this case before the decision to commence the auction.

Nevertheless, since each land of this case is likely to be successful at a low price by submitting a lien report at the auction court, the absence of a lien is confirmed by the defendant.

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that F, the owner of each land of this case, was trying to construct a penture on each land of this case by making G as a executor.

( state)G is pensioned to H and I.