1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, it is recognized that it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the scope of the secured claim in this case, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the Defendant reported a lien with the claim for construction cost of KRW 3,636,348,300 as the secured claim in a voluntary auction procedure upon the Plaintiff’s request, which is a senior mortgagee, as the right of retention, and even if the right of retention exists, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the existence or effect of the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is not exceeded KRW 23,503,375, even if the right of retention has a right of retention, and thus, it is not necessary to determine the scope of the secured claim in this case’s case on the grounds that the scope of the secured claim does not change in full construction price claim.

However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept in light of the above legal principles.

According to the records, the total appraised value of the subject matter of the auction of this case is KRW 4,849,834,640, and the Plaintiff’s claimed amount is KRW 4,103,00,000. The Defendant reported a lien of at least KRW 3.6 billion, thereby having failed to meet all bidders on the date of sale over several occasions in the auction procedure of this case, and subsequently failed to comply with the Plaintiff’s request.