1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of lien shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 18, 2009, the Defendant was awarded a contract with the construction period of the construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) of the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) on the ground specified in the attached Table No. 2 of the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by B and C respective shares from B and C (hereinafter “instant land”) as KRW 1,50,000 from September 21, 2009 to December 20, 209.

B. The Defendant completed the instant construction work on December 20, 209, but failed to receive the construction price.

C. After that, on November 9, 2010 with respect to the instant land, this Court D, and on the instant building, each real estate auction procedure was commenced as E in this Court on November 22, 2010, and the Defendant reported a lien with respect to the claim for construction price equivalent to KRW 1,630,000,000 on November 29, 2010 as the preserved right.

In each of the above real estate auction procedures, the instant land and buildings were sold to the Plaintiff on July 16, 2012, and the ownership transfer registration was made in the Plaintiff on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio the determination on the legitimacy of the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of a lien among the instant lawsuit, and the lawsuit for confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s anxiety and risk. As seen in the instant case, in a case where the Defendant occupies the instant land and buildings owned by the Plaintiff, seeking the transfer of the said land and buildings is a direct means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s apprehension and risk as to the Plaintiff’s ownership effectively and appropriately, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation to seek the confirmation of the absence of a lien on the said land and buildings separately against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da84932, Apr. 10, 2014).