1. It is confirmed 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 entered into a contract with D on September 1, 2017 to construct the instant building on the ground, as an owner of the building in Ansan-si 296 square meters in order to construct the instant building on that ground.

Since then, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E around 2018 to operate the contractor of the said contract.

B. D and E’s failure to comply with the promise to suspend construction before September 2018 and to resume construction after the completion of the construction of the aggregate building. However, the Plaintiff terminated the said contract around August 2019.

C. Around April 2019, the Defendant installed a banner stating “in the course of exercising the right of retention” on the instant building, which was completed by the pelvis Corporation.

[Ground] Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 10 to 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On September 7, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the right of retention is exercised by occupying the instant building in which the construction of molds was subcontracted from E to complete the construction of the instant building, among the construction of the instant building, and the construction of molds was completed.

However, there is a burden of proving that a person claiming a lien has the burden of proving the possession of an object, which is the requisite fact of the lien, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant has occupied the building of this case, which is the requirement for the establishment and existence of a lien, solely on the ground that the Defendant carried the banner stipulated in the “in the course of exercising a lien” on the building of this case. There

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da8713 Decided August 23, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530 Decided September 24, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2016Da256814 Decided March 9, 2017, etc.). Ultimately, since it is not recognized that the Defendant occupied the instant building, there is no right of retention for the instant building, and as long as the Defendant contests this, there is a benefit to seek confirmation from the Plaintiff.

The defendant.