1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, on May 20, 201, the Plaintiff spent construction costs for the construction of the instant building by being awarded a contract for the construction of a new building from B, and leased the construction cost to D operating a patrolman C on December 201, and is an indirect possession thereof.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s lien exists as to the instant building as the preserved claim against the Plaintiff’s claim for construction cost, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, seeking its confirmation.

2. The defendant's lawsuit of confirmation of the main defense against the main defense is permitted as a legitimate lawsuit for confirmation in the event that there is an infeasible risk in the position of the right or legal status and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective way to solve the dispute fundamentally and there is no other effective and adequate means. On the other hand, the right of retention is the right that the creditor may refuse to deliver the article to the owner of the article until he is reimbursed of the claim arising with respect to the article of another person.

Based on these legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the health class, Eul evidence No. 24, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the fact that the Taean District Foundation completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 26, 2013, which was subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court of this case, due to the contribution of the building of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s seeking confirmation of the existence of a lien against the Defendant who is not the owner of the building of this case as of the date of the closing of argument in the trial of the first instance cannot be deemed an appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s existing apprehension and risk of

3. As such, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful and thus dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained due to the change of the owner of the building in this case, so the judgment of first instance shall be revoked and the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.