2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A lawsuit for confirmation may be allowed only when there is a danger in existence in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and the obtaining of a judgment on confirmation is the most effective way to resolve the dispute, and it is recognized that there is no other effective and adequate means than receiving a judgment on confirmation.

[Attachment 2] The Plaintiff sought confirmation that there exists a lien against the Defendant on the ground that a claim for construction cost of KRW 1,000,000 for each real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] list exists as stated in the cause of the claim.

However, there is no assertion and proof by the Plaintiff as to “the Defendant is legally disputing the existence of the above lien and there is a legal interest to seek confirmation as to the existence of such lien to the Plaintiff” (in fact, the Plaintiff does not dispute the Plaintiff’s lien on the second hearing date.

[Attachment 1] According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the present owner of each real estate listed in [Attachment 1] No. 1 and No. 3 of the [Attachment 1] is not the defendant, and the plaintiff has no interest in seeking confirmation of the existence of the right of retention against the defendant as to each of the above real estate.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed because there is no benefit of confirmation, so it is not an incidental law. It is so decided as per Disposition.