2. The defendant shall pay 1,529,000,000 won to the plaintiff and this shall apply.

A. On February 1, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant, who was awarded a new construction contract for the instant building C (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), and with the Defendant, among the new construction works, the construction cost of KRW 1,529,00,000 (including surtax) and the construction period from February 3, 2018 to May 10, 2018, and completed the instant construction work on May 30, 2018.

However, the Defendant did not pay the instant construction cost to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff now exercises the right of retention with respect to the instant real estate as the preserved right, thereby seeking confirmation of the right of retention to the Defendant.

B. We examine ex officio the Plaintiff’s right of retention confirmation on the legitimacy of the part of the Plaintiff’s claim.

A lawsuit for confirmation may only be permitted as a lawful lawsuit only when there is a danger existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and the obtaining of a judgment of 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 of confirmation.

However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to view that there is a specific legal interest to seek confirmation as to the existence of a lien on the instant real estate separately from seeking payment of the construction cost against the Defendant, who is merely the contractor of the instant construction, who re-subcontracted the instant construction project, which is part of the new construction project regarding the instant real estate by the

Therefore, there is no benefit of confirmation as to the claim for lien confirmation among the lawsuits in this case.