1. The part concerning each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the attached list among the judgments of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked;

1. Basic facts

A. On January 17, 2013, in order to secure loan claims against D, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for voluntary auction of each of the instant real estate with the Incheon District Court E, on the following grounds: (b) on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by D (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”; (c) on each of the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the separate sheet as “each of the instant land”; and (c) on each of the buildings listed in paragraph 2 of the same list as “the instant building”; (c) on the other hand, the Plaintiff was set up with a maximum debt amount of KRW 59 million; and (d) on the other hand, the decision to commence auction was made on May 15, 2013; and (e) on the

B. In the above auction procedure on August 12, 2013, the Defendant filed a report on the right to the instant building by asserting that the claim for construction cost of KRW 272 million against D was the secured claim, and that the right to the instant building was owned by the lien.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, Gap evidence No. 7-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff sought confirmation that there is no Defendant’s lien on each of the instant real estate. The Defendant asserts that, on October 7, 2011, the Plaintiff, who was awarded a contract for the new construction of the instant building from D and completed the construction cost of KRW 272 million and was paid the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 200 million, has a lien holding a claim for the said construction cost as the secured claim in respect of the instant building.

3. We examine ex officio whether a partial lawsuit against each of the lands of this case is lawful, and that there is no defendant's right of retention on each of the lands of this case. Thus, there is no interest in seeking confirmation of the non-existence of such right of retention.

Therefore, the part concerning each of the instant land in the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

4. Whether the defendant's right of retention exists as to the building of this case

(a) Gap 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 9;