1. All parts of the instant lawsuit against Defendant D and Defendant V are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) contracted the construction of the instant construction of the AJ building in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “AH”) from the H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AH”) for the total construction cost of KRW 7,900,00,000 ( separate value-added tax). The additional construction related to the instant construction was awarded a contract for KRW 1,800,000 ( separate value-added tax), and the Plaintiff B did not receive KRW 3,930,00,000 out of the construction cost, even after the completion of the instant construction work by subcontracting the waterside and other construction (including miscellaneous and windows).

Accordingly, in order to secure the above construction price claim, the Plaintiffs were entitled to exercise lien while occupying the new building of this case.

As to the assertion, the Defendants are the owners of the new building of this case or the right to collateral security, and thus, denies the exercise of the plaintiffs' right to retention, so they seek confirmation of existence

2. The Plaintiffs, as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant D and V (hereinafter “V”), seek confirmation of the existence of the Plaintiffs’ lien against Defendant D and Defendant V on the premise that Defendant D is the owners of AK among the new buildings of this case, and Defendant V is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security regarding the said AK.

The lawsuit for confirmation is permitted when there is a risk of infeasible in rights or legal status, and the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to solve the dispute.

Meanwhile, the right of retention is a right that a creditor may refuse to deliver the goods to the owner by possessing the said goods until he/she is reimbursed for a claim incurred in relation to another person’s goods (Article 320(1) of the Civil Act). In full view of the foregoing legal principles, based on the health class, evidence No. 8-2, and the overall purport of pleadings, AH sold the said AK to Defendant D on September 9, 2015, and Defendant D on September 30, 2015.