2. The defendant B.

In accordance with Article 91 (5) of the Civil Execution Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the auction procedure to exercise a security right pursuant to Article 268 of the Civil Execution Act, the lien holder may not claim the successful bidder to repay the secured debt, but may refuse to deliver the real estate, which is the object of the auction, until the secured debt is repaid. Thus, the bidder in the auction procedure, after the successful bid, may not easily deliver the object of auction from the lien holder. Accordingly, the real estate for the purpose of auction is likely to be awarded at the lower price.

As such, the risk of the decrease of the creditors' dividend amount due to a successful bid is an unstable legal status of the plaintiff, who is the debtor, in the auction procedure. Thus, the plaintiff's interest to remove the above unstable cannot be considered as a mere de facto and economic interest.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da32848 Decided September 23, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409 Decided March 10, 2016, etc.). However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in subparagraph B or 6, the instant building was knocked on June 8, 2017, which was after the filing of the counterclaim by Defendant C, and the distribution schedule was prepared on July 11, 2017, and the auction procedure for the instant building was completed, and thus, it cannot be said that Defendant C has any apprehension any further, and therefore, Defendant C has no benefit to seek confirmation of the non-existence of a lien.

As to this, Defendant C asserts that there is a concern that it will be liable for warranty under Articles 578(1) and 575(1) of the Civil Act. However, in the case of auction, Article 578(1) of the Civil Act, the successful bidder shall be liable for auction under the preceding eight Articles.