1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiff A’s claim for lien confirmation is dismissed.

2. Defendant D Co., Ltd. shall be against Plaintiff A.

1. Of the instant lawsuit, we examine whether the part of the Plaintiff A’s claim for the confirmation of lien is lawful ex officio.

A lawsuit for confirmation requires a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant in order to eliminate anxietys and risks that exist in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). In the case of Plaintiff A’s claim for the confirmation of a lien among the lawsuit in this case, the Defendants do not dispute not only the right of retention claimed by Plaintiff A, but also the loan claim, which is the secured claim, and the Defendants cannot be a valid and appropriate remedy against the Defendants even if there is apprehensions or risks of Plaintiff A’s rights in relation to a third party.

Therefore, there is no interest in the lawsuit against the Defendants to seek confirmation of the lien, and the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of the Plaintiff A’s lien is unlawful.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Determination 1 as to Defendant D’s claim 2.30% per annum on June 30, 2013, 50: 20.30% per annum on December 30, 2013; 30.30% per annum on December 31, 2013; 30.30% per annum on June 30, 2013 (No. 45,000; 30.35% per annum on June 30, 2014; 30.35% per annum on June 30, 2014; 170, 570, 00 per annum on June 30, 2014; 30.5% per annum on June 30, 2014; 30.5% per annum on June 30, 2014; 205% per annum on June 30, 2014.