1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 11, 2008, Plaintiff A completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the sale of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Plaintiff B, May 8, 2008, as to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the same Schedule No. 2 (hereinafter “instant Real Estate No. 2”); Plaintiff C, April 11, 2008, as to the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the same Schedule No. 3 (hereinafter “instant Real Estate No. 3”; hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) by voluntary auction.

B. On October 14, 2008, on the ground that each of the instant real estate has a lien, a limited liability company, filed an application for a discretionary auction of real estate with the Jeonju District Court Military Accounting Branch D on October 14, 2008. E purchased each of the instant real estate from the above auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 21, 2010.

C. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution against the Seo-gu Electricity (Seoul District Court 2010Na592). The first instance court and the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2010Na1956) ruled that the amount of delivery for the Seo-gu Electricity was deleted on the ground that the lien on each of the instant real estate was not recognized. The Supreme Court of final appeal (Supreme Court 201Da83691) reversed and remanded the instant case in line with the conclusion as to whether to allow a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution at the appellate court (Supreme Court 2011Da83691) and finally reversed and remanded the case, and finally, reversed and remanded the case (No. 2014Na65444). Accordingly, the claim for construction price, which is the secured claim of the lien on each of the instant real estate, was extinguished by the completion of prescription at the time of the decision to commence the auction procedure, and thus, the auction procedure in this case was null and void, and ownership of each of the instant real estate still exists to the Plaintiffs.