1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The plaintiffs are insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiffs have lawfully occupied the building of this case from March 2, 2012 to March, 2012, and the records of evidence Nos. 6, 9, 34, and 40 are rejected, and this court's reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the defendant's additional determination as to the main defense of this case by this court as follows 2.

Each "Witness" of the 5th, 8th, 6th, 14th, 7th, and 11th of the judgment of the first instance shall be written with "Witness of the first instance court", respectively.

The 6th of the judgment of the first instance shall be "10th of October", "1th of November", and "1th of November" with "1th of November" with "10th of November", respectively.

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The gist of the Defendant’s main defense to the effect that the right of retention on the instant building exists to the Plaintiffs under Paragraph 1 of the purport of the claim, and Paragraph 2 of the claim is based on the right of retention existing on the Plaintiffs, since the Plaintiffs occupy the instant building with the title of the above right of retention, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs are demanding the Defendant who occupied the first floor of the instant building to withdraw from the first floor of the instant building.

As stated in Paragraph 2, seeking evictions against the defendant is a direct means to eliminate in a valid and appropriate way the plaintiffs’ right to possess possession of the building of this case, and thus, it is unlawful to seek confirmation that there exists a lien on the building of this case, as stated in Paragraph 1 of the separate claim, because there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. A lawsuit for confirmation of judgment is recognized where obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s anxiety and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41153, Jul. 10, 2008). The right to possess an object is the right.