2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Defendant D is the owner of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, 1412 square meters and F 470.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Defendant D filed a lawsuit for the removal of buildings, etc. against the female members, which owned the building as indicated in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the above land, and received a final judgment in favor of the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul High Court 2003Na82909, Supreme Court 2005Da9708). Accordingly, the removal of the instant building was executed on January 14, 2014 by filing an application for a replacement for removal with the Seoul Central District Court.

B. On February 3, 2015, after the removal of the building, Defendant D received a certificate of existence of the building (No. 2115) from Seocho-gu, and applied for registration of destruction of the building of this case to the competent registry office. Upon the said application, Defendant D closed the relevant registry after completing registration of destruction of the building of this case on February 16, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff A and B had each right to collateral security listed in the attached Table 2 with respect to the instant building, and the Plaintiff C had the lien of the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap 1, 2, 6 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 4 evidence, Eul 1 through 3 (including provisional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Even after the Plaintiffs’ assertion and enforcement upon Defendant D’s motion, there exist buildings remaining without removing the first and second floors of the instant building, and the Plaintiffs have the right as a mortgagee or lien holder with respect to the remaining parts of the building.

However, after the cancellation registration of the building of this case was completed upon Defendant D’s application, the pertinent registry was closed, and the closed registry cannot be claimed as a lawsuit, apart from the fact that the registration official restores ex officio. Thus, in order to protect the rights of the plaintiffs as to the building of this case, each of them is against Defendant D.