1. As to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 2 list, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 300 million as the secured claim.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the purport of Gap evidence 1-1-6, Gap evidence 2-1-1, Gap evidence 9-1-2, and the whole arguments.

A. On April 19, 2012, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter “the instant condominium building”), owned by the Co., Ltd. C (hereinafter “C”), the voluntary auction procedure began on April 19, 2012 as D with the official order branch branch of the Daejeon District Court.

The plaintiff is among the aggregate buildings of this case on June 19, 2013 through the above voluntary auction procedure.

(b)beo;

F. Purchasing real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 25, 2013.

On October 29, 2013, the Plaintiff is among the instant condominiums.

A. Separately purchased real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 5, 2013.

B. On May 3, 2012, the Defendant reported the lien on the instant aggregate building at the above auction procedure.

C. The instant condominium was merged into a general building on February 24, 2014, and converted into a general building on the building ledger. On December 23, 2014, it was registered as a general building on the register.

(hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case". 2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant received a subcontract price claim and a lien of KRW 300 million from E who subcontracted the mold construction of this case and retaining wall construction, but the mold construction of this case and retaining wall construction claimed by the defendant were conducted by the DNA integrated construction company (hereinafter referred to as "d Cases construction"), and E's claim for construction cost is based on a false statement of rejection of construction cost prepared in collusion with C.

Therefore, there is no right to preserve the right of retention for the defendant.

At the time of the commencement of the auction procedure of this case, the aggregate building of this case was owned by the case construction and the offland corporation, and the defendant did not possess the aggregate building of this case.

Even if the defendant occupied the aggregate building of this case, the right of retention was extinguished by the loss of possession.

3. Determination. (a)