1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the real estate indicated in the annexed real estate, the Defendants’ lien is valid.

1. On December 22, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate indicated in the attachment (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Defendants asserted that there was a lien on the instant real estate and filed a request for auction on September 29, 2010 with respect to the instant real estate, and received a decision to commence auction to the Seoul Eastern District Court E on September 29, 2010. The Defendants asserted that the instant real estate was not the construction business operator who newly built the instant real estate, and did not own the secured claim of the lien upon payment of the construction cost, and did not hold the secured claim of the lien upon payment of the construction cost, even if the Defendants did not own the instant real estate from the original possession, or lost possession after April 13, 2013, and sought confirmation that there was no lien by the Defendants.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that they are the construction business operators who newly built the instant real estate, with the claim for construction cost equivalent to KRW 1,135,804,00, and they possess the instant real estate. Thus, they are the legitimate lien holders with respect to the instant real estate.

2. The defendants' assertion of res judicata as to the plaintiff's claim is confirmed by a final and conclusive judgment that the defendants' lien on the real estate of this case exists between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is not permissible since it violates the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment.

Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is included in the text of the judgment, that is, the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of lawsuit itself, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations, which are the premise of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu24622 delivered on January 12, 1990, etc.). The purport of the whole pleadings is as follows: (a) evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-1 and 2-2.