beta
Text
1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of lien among the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 218,00,000.
Reasons
1. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of lien among the instant lawsuit
A. On December 26, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a new factory of KRW 590,000,00 for the construction cost of the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) on the ground of the real estate, namely, 3,767 square meters and D forest 940 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant real estate”). On February 15, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant for the payment of the completed portion of KRW 218,00,000 until the time between the Defendant and the Defendant as of February 15, 2019.
(2) On April 24, 2019, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of existence of lien (hereinafter referred to as the “certificate of existence of lien”) to the effect that the Plaintiff was unable to pay the instant settlement amount to the Plaintiff, and that “the Plaintiff was able to exercise the lien on the instant real estate because the Plaintiff was unable to pay the instant settlement amount to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was able to exercise the lien on the instant real estate” (hereinafter referred to as the “certificate of existence of lien”).
Therefore, the plaintiff needs to seek confirmation of existence of right of retention so that the defendant does not reverse it.
B. A lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation is permissible as a legitimate lawsuit for the benefit of confirmation in a case where there is apprehension or risk existing in a right or legal status, obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate to resolve the dispute in a fundamental way, and there is no other effective and appropriate means.
However, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant recognizes that the right of retention for the real estate of this case exists in the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in the lawsuit of this case also.