1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The auction of real estate was initiated as D in this Court with respect to the land and the building on the land of the Cheong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

On May 6, 2015, the Defendant reported the lien with the claim of KRW 68,00,000 for the remainder of the interior repair work of the instant real estate in the D auction procedure regarding the instant real estate.

On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff reported as the highest price purchaser and received the decision of permission for sale.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant filed a lien on the real estate of this case based on a false contract for construction price, and the defendant did not occupy the real estate of this case, so a lien shall not be established.

Even if there are claims secured by the lien against the defendant

Even if the defendant's claim for construction price was completed by the extinctive prescription for the short-term period of three years from August 9, 2011.

We examine whether the instant lawsuit is legitimate ex officio by determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The benefit of confirmation of legal action is recognized when the plaintiff's interest or legal status is in danger and in danger.

According to the purport of the entire pleadings, evidence Nos. 10 and 12, the Plaintiff received a decision to permit the sale of the pertinent real estate on August 10, 2015, and did not pay the price for the instant real estate by the due date for the payment of the price, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate.

As long as the Plaintiff is not the owner of the real estate of this case, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s exercise of the right of retention has caused the present apprehension or danger in any right or legal status. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful.