1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, as it is identical to the part against the defendant under Paragraph (1) of the same Article of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment

The summary of the parties’ assertion is that the Defendant, without having a lien on each of the instant real estate, occupies the right of retention by asserting that it does not exist, to seek confirmation of existence of the right of retention against the Defendant.

Defendant: (a) supply of and demand for construction works to remodel the instant building from C that owned each of the instant real property on June 25, 2015; and (b) the same year.

6. 30.10

7. The remodeling project was executed not later than 20.20, but did not receive any of the construction cost of KRW 288,670,225.

Accordingly, from June 30, 2015, in order to secure the above claim for construction cost, a lien is exercised while occupying each of the real estate in this case.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the existence of construction cost claim Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant reported a lien on the fact that "the defendant submitted a contract, etc. in which the content of the lien is stated as follows: (a) the construction work to remodel the building of this case from Eul around June 25, 2015 to the auction court around June 25, 2016 shall be KRW 863,00,000; and (b) the construction period shall be from June 30, 2015 to September 25, 2015; but (c) the lien shall be exercised for lack of payment of construction cost of KRW 288,670,225."

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts and the images of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10 were the defendant engaged in remodeling work equivalent to KRW 288,670,225 in the building of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

In principle, the buyer at the real estate auction procedure as to whether possession has been continued shall be liable to repay the claims secured by the lien to the lien holder pursuant to Article 91 (5) of the Civil Execution Act, but the building owned by the debtor, etc.