1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The plaintiff and the designated parties asserted that the land of this case were normalized and their construction cost reaches KRW 141,745,000.

The Plaintiff and the designated parties exercise the right of retention while occupying the instant land for the purpose of preserving the claim for construction cost, and thus, seek confirmation of such right of retention against the Defendant, the owner of the instant land.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

A lawsuit for confirmation is permitted as a legitimate lawsuit in the event that there is a danger existing in a right or legal status and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective way to resolve the dispute, and in addition, it is recognized that there is no valid and adequate means. Meanwhile, the right of retention is the right that the creditor may refuse to possess and deliver the article to the owner of the article until he/she is reimbursed for the claim created with respect to another person's article.

However, in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1 and 20, it can be recognized that M completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day after obtaining a decision to permit sale of the instant land on December 19, 2014, which was subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court of this case. As of the date of closing argument in the trial, seeking confirmation of the existence of a lien against the Defendant who is not the owner of each of the instant land as of the date of closing argument in the trial, cannot be deemed an appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s existing apprehension and danger of the Plaintiff’s rights, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit

Even if the instant lawsuit is lawful, possession of a thing that serves as the requirement for the establishment of a lien must be exempted from other persons’ interference (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da205501, Dec. 12, 2013). The Plaintiff and the designated parties are under the exercise of a lien.