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

A. The Plaintiff and C (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) are those running “D” in the production, installation, and specialized construction subcontracting business (minor construction business). The Defendant is a company with the purpose of theme park development business.

B. On June 9, 2017 and July 27, 2017, the Plaintiff, etc. received a subcontract for the following works with respect to the construction works in E from the Defendant:

(2) A swimming pool construction project: a contract amount of KRW 250,000 (excluding value-added tax): A contract amount of KRW 250,000 (excluding value-added tax) (3) A facility construction project: a contract amount of KRW 55,00,000 (excluding value-added tax)

C. The Plaintiff et al. completed each of the instant subcontracts, and the Defendant paid only KRW 74,947,800 out of the total construction cost of each of the instant subcontracts KRW 891,00,000 [275,000,000 (the contract price of KRW 250,000,000), which is KRW 55,000,000 (the contract price of KRW 250,000,000)].

[Grounds for Recognition] deemed confession (Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion, etc., obtained a lien on the instant building by occupying the instant building with the claim for construction cost of KRW 816,052,200 ( KRW 891,00,000 - KRW 74,947,80) against the Defendant from September 5, 2018 as the secured claim. As such, the Plaintiff, etc., sought confirmation of the lien as stated in the purport of the claim.

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

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is one of the most effective means to eliminate the risk of uncertainty when there is dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation and the plaintiff’s right or legal status is threatened thereby.