1. All of the claims for the confirmation of existence of lien in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C shall be attached.

1. Basic facts

A. Voluntary auction as to the land listed in the separate sheet and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership 1) land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).

On August 16, 2013, Gyeongnam Bank filed an application for voluntary auction based on the right to collateral security. On August 19, 2013, 201, the decision of voluntary auction was rendered by Changwon District Court F on August 19, 2013. On the same day, the pertinent decision of commencement of auction was completed. (2) The Plaintiff received the decision of permission for sale of the instant land in the said voluntary auction procedure, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 4, 2014 by fully paying the proceeds of sale.

B. The Defendants’ occupied the instant land and the instant land indicated in the Map Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, connected each point of the said land and the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, occupy the steel frame 486m2 (hereinafter “instant structure”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant Daeung Construction Co., Ltd.’s judgment on the defense prior to the merits may file a request for extradition with the above Defendant on the basis of the ownership of the instant land. As such, it did not have any interest in seeking confirmation of non-existence of a lien (the Plaintiff added a request for extradition on the instant land to the Defendants via an application for modification of the purport of claim and the cause of claim as of April 5, 2016, thereby making ex officio determination on the remainder of the Defendants). The lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where the judgment of confirmation was rendered is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s apprehensions and risks.

As in the instant case, in the event the Defendants possessed the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, seeking the transfer of the instant land would be a direct means to effectively and appropriately remove the Plaintiff’s ownership anxiety and risks.