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 for the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for adding the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of waiver of the right of retention at the trial, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is decided to accept this as it is

2. Determination as to the assertion of waiver of lien

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant renounced the right of retention against the building of this case on January 2, 2006, and the defendant is obligated to comply with the plaintiff's request for extradition.

B. The res judicata does not allow a subsequent suit that is identical to the subject matter of a prior suit in which the res judicata has res judicata effect, and in a case where the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit is prior to or contradictory to the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit even though the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as that on the subject matter of a prior suit in the prior suit, the subsequent suit does not allow any assertion different

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the statement No. 4-2 and No. 5-7 of the evidence No. 4-2, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant to confirm the non-existence of a lien on the buildings including the building in this case under the 201-Gahap1643 of the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Office of 201-Gahap1643 (hereinafter referred to as the "exclusive lawsuit"). The above court confirmed the non-existence of a lien on the grounds that the defendant lost possession of the building in this case on February 14, 2012. Accordingly, the defendant appealedd as Seoul High Court 2012Na32715, and the above court concluded the pleadings on September 11, 2012. The defendant was not deprived of possession, and the plaintiffs dismissed the plaintiffs' claim to confirm the non-existence of a lien on the grounds that the preserved claim under a lien exists, and the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal under Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10713, Dec. 314, 2013

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs did so.