1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant G is revoked, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s lawsuit against Defendant G is brought against the Plaintiff.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the construction of the instant building was ordered by the Defendants to be subcontracted to the Plaintiff and the designated parties upon being awarded a contract for the construction of the instant building, and the Plaintiff and the designated parties had a claim for the construction cost as stated in the purport of the claim by suspending the construction of the instant building on or around April 30, 2015 while performing the construction of the instant

Plaintiff

In order to preserve the claim for the above construction cost, the designated parties are attracting the building of this case. Since the Defendants are likely to select another construction business operator and perform the construction work, they seek confirmation of the existence of the lien on the building of this case.

2. We examine whether the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation of existence of a lien against Defendant G is legitimate, ex officio, among the instant lawsuit, as to the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of a lien against Defendant G.

In a lawsuit for confirmation of rights, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, when there is apprehension or apprehension in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risk of apprehension (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). Meanwhile, a right of retention is a right that a creditor may refuse to hand over an article owned by the owner of the article, until he/she is reimbursed for

However, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant G entered into a sales contract for the purchase of the instant building that had been under construction from Defendant F on April 26, 2013. Defendant G and Defendant F, after the discontinuance of the construction of the instant building, revoked the sales contract for the instant building on November 17, 2015, and Defendant G waives all rights to the instant building and the input construction cost, while the instant building is located.