1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the right to claim reimbursement of 677,00,000 won against the defendant as the right to be preserved is a lien on each real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case"). The Korea Asset Management Corporation's public auction procedure on each real estate of this case is in progress. Since the defendant did not recognize the plaintiff's right to retention and refuses to repay the beneficial cost, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of existence of the right to retention.

We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

Lawsuits for confirmation are allowed as legitimate lawsuits for confirmation in cases where the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is infeasible and dangerous, and obtaining judgment on confirmation is the most effective and appropriate to fundamentally resolve the dispute, and in cases where it is recognized that there is no other effective and appropriate means except for judgment on confirmation.

On the other hand, the defendant did not submit a written response and did not appear at the date of pleading, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant is disputing the plaintiff's right of retention. In full view of the fact that the judgment on the existence of a right of retention between the plaintiff and the defendant does not affect any third party except the defendant, seeking confirmation of the existence of a right of retention against the defendant is an appropriate means to remove the plaintiff's existing apprehension and danger of the plaintiff's right.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

In conclusion, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case as unlawful, and decide as per Disposition.