1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the plaintiffs' claim to confirm the absence of lien against defendant AA, AB, and AC.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the reasoning for this Court is identical to that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition or deletion as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

▣ 제1심 판결문 제4면 제16행 중 “U부분” 다음에 “(총 2,877㎡)”를 추가한다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 제5면 제15행 중 “제출하였다”를 “제출하였으나, 2015. 3. 30. 다시 취하서를 제출하였다”로 고치고, 같은 면 제16행 중 “주식회사 AB,”를 삭제한다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 제6면 제5행 중 “11호증” 다음에 “, 을가 제3호증”을 추가한다.

2. Of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendant AA, AB, and AC, the determination ex officio on the part concerning the claim for confirmation of non-existence of a lien, and the existence of interest in confirmation in the lawsuit for confirmation shall be made ex officio by the court, regardless of the plaintiff's assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006). The lawsuit for confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to remove the plaintiff's legal status at the time when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable, and the lawsuit for confirmation may be brought, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff's legal status is not a final solution of the dispute, and therefore there is no benefit in confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41153 Decided July 10, 2008, etc.). In the auction case of this case, the Plaintiffs are those who have already acquired the ownership of each of the instant lands, and if, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, Defendant AA, AB (hereinafter “Defendant AB”), and AC (hereinafter “Defendant AC”) interfered with the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ ownership by occupying each of the instant lands on the ground of a lien, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, they are against the said Defendants.