1. Ascertainment that the defendant's lien does not exist with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor as to B, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and a mortgagee as to the instant real estate.

B. On December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant real estate, and on December 9, 2015, the real estate auction case was commenced under this Court C.

C. In the above auction case, on March 2, 2016, the Defendant submitted a report on the right and a request for distribution as a lessee, and filed an additional report on the lien on May 4, 2016, on the ground that the Defendant was not reimbursed the construction cost of KRW 185,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the Plaintiff alleged that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the Plaintiff’s claim first, the Defendant, the obligee, bears the responsibility to assert and prove the facts constituting the elements of legal relationship. As such, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a right of retention, the Defendant should assert and prove the existence of the subject matter of a right of retention and the related claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409, Mar. 10, 2016). The Defendant asserted that the instant real estate had been engaged in interior works and miscellaneous works, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such fact.

(2) The Defendant did not submit any evidence as to the instant real estate and did not appear on the second day for pleading. Therefore, the Defendant’s lien as to the instant real estate is nonexistent.

The plaintiff who applied for the above auction procedure has the interest to seek confirmation.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.