1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff received a decision of permission for sale on February 9, 2017 from a compulsory auction procedure (Seoul Central District Court B, etc.) for the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day on February 24, 2017 after receiving a decision of permission for sale on February 24, 2017.

B. The defendant asserted that he did not receive the construction cost of KRW 1,053,882,596 from the owner and reported the lien equivalent to the above amount in the above auction procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the right of retention claimed by the Defendant is based on a false claim with no objective supporting material, and thus, a false report is filed for the postponement of purchase or auction auction auction through an appraisal of the instant real estate, and thus, the absence

3. We examine ex officio the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

According to the above facts and the purport of the whole pleadings, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff for the real estate of this case has been completed, and the procedure for compulsory auction for the real estate of this case has also been terminated.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized where obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s uncertainty and risk. As such, the direct means by which the Plaintiff, as the owner of the pertinent real estate, valid and adequate, and adequate means to remove the ownership of the said real estate, is seeking to transfer the pertinent real estate against the Defendant claiming a lien (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da84932, Apr. 10, 2014). As such, the claim for confirmation of the non-existence of a lien on the instant real estate is unlawful

[In addition, the plaintiff, who was the tenant of the real estate in this case, seems to have already been ordered by the court of execution to deliver the real estate (Seoul Central District Court D, the plaintiff himself/herself in the preparatory brief dated January 29, 2018).