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

2. The counterclaim Defendant shall attach an annex to the counterclaim.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On November 15, 201, the Counterclaim concluded a construction contract with the effect that the civil construction work for the creation of an industrial complex is set at KRW 3,920,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) on each land listed in the separate sheet owned by the Counterclaim Defendant on the ground (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

8. Progressed portion and special agreement:

1. Payment of the monthly progress payment amount;

2. Air shall be determined within ten months from the date of commencement.

3. The construction cost incurred by the alteration of design shall be determined by property;

B. From September 6, 2011 to January 22, 2013, the Counterclaim Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 2,642,869,90 to the Counterclaim Defendant.

C. On August 14, 2013, the Counterclaim rescinded the instant construction contract on the ground that the Counterclaim Defendant violated the contract.

Until now, the counterclaim Defendant occupies each of the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 4 evidence, Eul 1, 10, 12 evidence, Eul 7-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio the claim for confirmation of existence of the lien of this case as to the legitimacy of the claim for confirmation of existence of the lien of this case.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine as a judgment for confirmation when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable in danger. Thus, even though a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought to seek implementation, it is not a final solution of dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da84932 Decided April 10, 2014). According to the premise as seen earlier, since each of the instant lands owned by the counterclaim Defendant is possessed by the counterclaim Defendant, seeking the transfer of each of the instant lands in such a case is a direct means to eliminate the anxiety and risk of the Plaintiff’s ownership effectively and appropriately.

Therefore, it is true.