유치권 부존재 확인
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Defendant B Co., Ltd." and "the defendants" are all dismissed to "the defendant," and that the third to fourth to 11 of the same surface shall be deleted, and that "the defendant B Co., Ltd. alleged that he had performed construction work" from "the defendant B Co., Ltd., Ltd.," to "the defendant alleged that he had performed construction work of steel stairs and strawlass among new construction work of factory on the land of this case" are as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they shall be cited as it is in accordance with
(2) The court below held that the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation of non-existence of a right of retention against the land of this case has no interest in lawsuit. However, as long as the defendant reported a right of retention to the effect that it is a lien holder for the land of this case in the auction procedure for the land of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of non-existence of a right of retention of the defendant's land of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the defendant'