1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. An independent party intervenor's lawsuit against the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 27, 2015, on the application of M (hereinafter “M”) (hereinafter “M”), with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which is owned by L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), the voluntary auction procedure was initiated on October 27, 2015 by the Suwon District Court and Yangyang Branch N (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

B. On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired from M to M five claims on each of the instant real estate from the instant bank with respect to theO, and completed all supplementary registrations with respect to the transfer of the right to collateral on the same day.

C. On May 21, 2018, the Intervenor, as the highest bidder of the instant auction procedure, completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estate by fully paying the sales price, and at the same time, the registration of ownership transfer was revoked at the same time.

[Ground of recognition] The items of evidence No. 1-3, evidence No. 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of existence of lien

A. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of relevant legal principles is permissible when there is infinite and risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da69407, Dec. 14, 2007). Considering that there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the non-existence of a right of retention as to collateral to a person who acquires a right of retention or a transferee of a right of collateral, there is a ground for the fact that there is a risk that the amount of distribution of the right of retention has decreased or the sale of the right of retention would become impossible because the right of retention is asserted in the auction procedure.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409, Mar. 10, 2016). However, despite the non-existence of a lien, the auction procedure is in progress and the distribution procedure is in progress.