1. Claim for the construction cost of KRW 187,137,500 with respect to the real property listed in [Attachment List] 15 shall be the secured claim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 23, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a joint collateral (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list owned by A on October 14, 2014, which was the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,300,000,000, and the debtor A and the plaintiff of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant mortgage”).

B. On September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for an auction of the rent of real estate with the Changwon District Court S branched B as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and on September 16, 2015, the registration of the entry was completed on the same day after receiving the decision to commence the auction of real estate.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

In the auction procedure of this case on January 11, 2016, the defendant is "real estate of this case" as stated in the attached list No. 15 of this case around December 20, 2014.

Even though the remodeling work was completed with respect to it, it did not receive the total of KRW 187,137,500 for the construction price and damages for delay.

'The right of retention' was asserted and reported.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that there is no right of retention of the defendant's assertion, since the defendant did not directly occupy the real estate of this case and cannot be viewed as legally occupying it through C.

B. As to the above, the Defendant asserts that since around February 10, 2015, the Defendant occupied the instant real estate through C, which is an occupation assistant, the Defendant’s right of retention is duly established and continued to exist.

3. In a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the plaintiff first claims that the cause of the right is denied, the defendant who is the right holder is liable to prove the fact that the right holder is the requirement of the right relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). Thus, in this case, the defendant's assertion that the lien holder is the lien holder is the requirement of the right occurrence.