beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant who intends to develop a complex of detached housing in Gwangju City around November 10, 2008 on construction works for the construction of roads for the said project. From September 1, 2008 to March 12, 2013, the Plaintiff constructed a road on the instant land with the instant cost of KRW 661,01,676 from September 1, 208, and the Defendant did not pay the construction cost, and opened the instant land as a lien holder, by preventing the instant land from the completion of construction works for the preservation of the claim for construction cost claim due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the construction cost, and installing a container, scke, and CCTV four.
Therefore, as the Plaintiff’s lien exists as to the instant land as a preserved claim, the Plaintiff’s right of retention is sought confirmation against the Defendant.
2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.
A lawsuit for confirmation is permitted as a legitimate lawsuit in the event that there is a danger existing in a right or legal status and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective way to resolve the dispute, and in addition, it is recognized that there is no valid and adequate means. Meanwhile, the right of retention is the right that the creditor may refuse to possess and deliver the article to the owner of the article until he/she is reimbursed for the claim created with respect to another person's article.
However, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 8 and the whole pleadings, it can be acknowledged that Eul completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case owned by the defendant due to sale on April 9, 2013. Since the judgment confirming the existence of a lien between the plaintiff and the defendant does not have any effect on any third party other than the defendant, seeking confirmation of the existence of a lien existence against the defendant, who is not the owner of the land of this case, removal of anxiety and danger of the plaintiff's right.