1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of lien shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) the annexed list;

1. Basic facts

A. On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”) in the Suwon District Court B and C (Joint) auction procedure, and paid the purchase price, and acquired the ownership of each of the instant land on January 16, 2015.

B. On November 16, 2012, the Defendant reported the right of retention for each of the instant lands to the auction court, with the existence of KRW 718,300,000 of the construction cost claim against D, who was the owner of each of the instant lands, in the process of voluntary auction on each of the instant lands.

다. 피고는 현재 이 사건 각 토지를 점유하고 있고, 이 사건 각 토지 중 별지 도면 표시 ㄱ, ㄴ, ㄷ, ㄹ, ㄱ의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 (ㄱ)부분 50㎡, 같은 도면 표시 ㅁ, ㅂ, ㅅ, ㅇ, ㅁ의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 (ㄴ)부분 63㎡ 및 같은 도면 표시 ㅈ, ㅊ, ㅋ, ㅌ, ㅈ의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 (ㄷ)부분 45㎡ 지상에는 폐고무 뭉치, 폐자루, 사용한 페인트 통 등의 건축폐기물이 적치되어 있다.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 through 4, 2, and 3, each entry of evidence Nos. 15-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The benefit of confirmation of a lawsuit to confirm the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation of existence of a lien is recognized when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s interest or legal status imminent danger, and to bring an action for performance. Even though it is possible to bring an action for confirmation of existence of the claim for performance itself, allowing the claim for confirmation of existence of the claim for performance cannot be effective removal of uncertainty and permissible in principle in the light of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da84932, Apr. 10, 2014). We examine ex officio whether this part of the lawsuit is lawful.

In the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff has the defendant's right of retention on each of the land of this case.