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

2...

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate list in the name B (hereinafter “instant land”) on April 14, 2014, the registration of creation of a mortgage, which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 845 billion, the debtor, B, and Seoul F&C, was completed due to the establishment of a mortgage contract as of April 14, 2014.

Seoul PwC filed a request for auction on the basis of the above right to collateral security, and on October 15, 2015, the auction procedure was commenced by the decision to commence the auction (C) by the High Court's High Court's High Court's High Court's decision to support.

On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the right to collateral security against B by transfer from the Seoul Dairy Cooperatives and acquires the right to collateral security against B.

9.22. The registration of transfer of the right to collateral security was completed.

On the other hand, on May 24, 2016, when the auction procedure of this case was in progress, the Defendant reported the right to the effect that the right of retention exists by making the claim for construction cost on the land of this case as the preserved right.

The current status survey report drawn up as of October 27, 2015 at the above auction procedure was prepared as of October 27, 2015, and the possession relationship cannot be confirmed as there is no one, and only the land in this case is indicated as miscellaneous condition by miscellaneous grass, etc

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-5 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If the Defendant wishes to have a lien on the instant land, it should be premised on the Defendant’s possession of the instant land.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant occupied the instant land before or after the commencement of the auction procedure, and rather, according to the current status survey report or appraisal report prepared at the above auction procedure, it is only confirmed that there is no person possessing the instant land.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's right of retention on the land of this case does not exist because it does not meet the requirements for the establishment thereof. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.