Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Although the defendant asserts that he is the lien holder to secure the claim for construction price against the transferor of the above real estate, since the defendant did not possess the above real estate lawfully, there is no lien for the defendant.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of an obligation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and the existence of apprehensions about the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status is the most effective means to eliminate the instability risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). In cases where the obligee filed a lawsuit against the obligor for performance against the obligor, and the obligor files a lawsuit for confirmation of the absence of obligation against the obligee during the lawsuit, both lawsuits are different

Even if an obligor may contest that the obligee does not have a claim against the obligor by seeking a judgment of rejection of the claim in the performance lawsuit, so there is no benefit to seek confirmation that there is no obligation against the obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22246, Jul. 24, 2001, etc.). In the case of a claim for the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), in full view of the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties, the Defendant only claims a lien on the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “the instant building”) and did not claim a lien on the instant land, and thus, the Plaintiff does not claim a lien on the instant land.