1. It is confirmed that each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet does not exist any of the defendants' respective lien.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in the construction business, etc., newly built G Borrowing, a multi-household, on the window C, D, E, and F of Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. From November 9, 2015, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff had a claim for construction payment with respect to the construction of the instant loan from around November 9, 2015.

1) On the wall of the Ba of this case, the banner " while exercising the right of retention" was set up, and the banner "in the course of exercising the right of retention" was set up at the entrance of the Bara parking lot of this case. (2) The Bara of this case was set up in front of the entrance of the Bara of this case, and the Bara installed a container at the front of the Bara of this case, and indicated "in the course of exercising the right of retention" in red letters on the side of the above container.

C. On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff moved containers installed by the Defendants and removed banners.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 8-1 through 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff had no lien on the instant loan for the following reasons.

1) At the time of November 4, 2015, when the Defendants asserted the right of retention, Defendant Han-gu Construction and Kangsan Construction had a claim for the remainder of construction works against the Plaintiff, the due date for payment has not yet arrived. The Defendant B and Seojin Construction did not have any construction cost to be paid any more from the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendants installed a container attached “in the course of exercising the right of retention” on the front road of the instant Bara, or attached a banner “in the course of exercising the right of retention” on the wall of the instant Bara.

However, the claim for the construction cost claimed by the Defendants as the secured claim is only a claim arising from the loan of this case, but also a loan of this case.