1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. As to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no lien for the Defendant, since the Defendant, who leased the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, did not exist as a condition non-performance, and did not occur from the instant real estate, the secured debt of the lien reported by the Defendant at the compulsory auction of the instant case, and thus, there is no relationship between the claim and the object, and the Defendant renounced the right of retention in advance of the beneficial or necessary expenses at the

As to this, the defendant does not have the most effective means to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status's anxiety and danger, and therefore, the defendant's defense of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

On the other hand, it is recognized that 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). In a case where the Defendant occupies the Plaintiff’s building, barring any special circumstance, seeking delivery of the building is a direct means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s ownership anxiety and risk effectively and appropriately. Thus, there is no benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation of absence of a lien against the Defendant separately.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da84932 Decided April 10, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da84932, Apr. 10, 201). The fact that the compulsory auction of the instant case was terminated as the withdrawal of an obligee’s application on August 18, 2015, and that the Plaintiff appointed as the Plaintiff’s custodian pursuant to the individual rehabilitation procedure commencement decision (No. 2014Da106, Jeju District Court Decision 2014Da106) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and D seeking extradition of the instant real estate against the Defendant and D as the Jeju District Court 2014Da1092, and the said court appealed the Defendant and D’s appeal.