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. As to the real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) listed in the separate sheet owned by Edrid Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Edrid”), the creditor of Edrid, upon receipt of a decision to commence compulsory auction on January 17, 2012, commenced the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and the entry registration was completed on January 18, 201.

B. On August 30, 2012, the Defendant filed a report on the right to retention on the instant real estate by asserting that the right to retention was exercised.

C. On August 10, 2016, the Plaintiff was determined as the highest price purchaser at the instant auction procedure, and the sales price was paid in full on September 9, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 evidence, each entry of Eul 2 evidence, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) The parties’ assertion (1) did not exist any secured claim of the right of retention asserted by the Plaintiff Defendant, and the Defendant did not occupy the instant real estate at the time when the compulsory decision of commencement of auction was completed on January 18, 2012, and there was no Defendant’s lien as to the instant real estate.

(2) The Defendant had a claim for the payment of KRW 251,00,000 for the instant real estate upon being awarded a contract for electrical, telecommunication, and fire fighting construction with respect to the instant real estate at Ewrid. Since the Defendant occupied the instant building from November 201, he/she had a lien on the instant building.

B. (1) In a lawsuit seeking the passive confirmation of the application legal doctrine (1) where the Plaintiff asserted to deny the fact that the cause of the occurrence of the obligation exists by specifying the first claim, the Defendant, the obligee, bears the burden of proving the fact that the legal relationship exists. Therefore, in this case, the Defendant, who claimed the existence of the right of retention, also has the relation to the instant real estate, which is the requisite fact.