1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) completed registration of ownership preservation in the name of C around September 12, 2013. The Namyang Livestock Industry Cooperatives, the mortgagee of each of the instant real estate, filed an application for voluntary auction with the Do Government District Court D regarding each of the instant real estate. In the said voluntary auction procedure, the Plaintiff Company purchased each of the instant real estate on September 26, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Plaintiff on May 27, 2015 (hereinafter “instant one real estate”).

B. On April 23, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Dong Government District Court 2014Gahap90 to confirm the existence of a lien on each of the instant real estate and received a favorable judgment on April 23, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion that ① the defendant's possession is illegal, the construction price claim is nonexistent, and since there is no claim for the waiver of the right of retention, there is no right of retention, or the right of retention cannot be exercised, and ② the defendant's assertion of the right of retention with the final and conclusive judgment, knowing that the possession of the real estate in this case cannot be established by unauthorized occupation, constitutes abuse of rights, which constitutes abuse of rights.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant occupies each of the instant real estate according to the lien established by judgment of the District Court 2014Gahap90, which became final and conclusive by judgment, and thus, the Defendant cannot comply with

3. The Plaintiffs are specific successors who received each of the instant real estate from C after the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit, and the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit is also against the Plaintiffs.