1. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the counterclaim in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, except for the following dismissal or addition, and thus, citing the reasoning of this judgment by the main text of Article 420

▣ 제1심판결문 제4쪽 아래에서 2행 ‘2. 판단’ 다음에 아래와 같은 부분을 추가

A. The instant counterclaim is unlawful on the following grounds as to the lawfulness of the counterclaim ex officio, based on the judgment on the counterclaim claim.

1) A lawsuit for formation of a legal relationship may be instituted only where the law expressly provides for the formation of a legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da45020, Jan. 16, 2001). The defendant claims the extinguishment of a right of retention under Article 324(3) of the Civil Act as the counterclaim of this case for the reason that the plaintiffs transferred or leased possession of each of the real estate to a third party with compensation without the defendant's prior consent. In light of the defendant's argument as to the circumstance leading up to the lawsuit, it is understood as filing a lawsuit for formation. The claim for extinguishment of a right of retention under the above law is understood as having no limitation in the form of law, whether it is a judicial or extra-judicial exercise of right of retention, but there is no legal ground to bring a lawsuit for formation of the right of retention. Thus, if the purport of the counterclaim of this case is to seek confirmation that there is no right of retention of the plaintiffs due to the extinguishment of the right of retention for the same reason, this is unlawful.

▣ 제1심판결문 제4쪽 마지막행 ‘가. 본소청구에 관한 판단’을 ‘나. 본소청구에 관한 판단’으로 바꿈 ▣ 제1심판결문 제8쪽 1행 내지 4행 ‘나. 반소청구에 관한 판단’ 부분을 삭제

2. Judgment on the appellate court’s argument

A. The defendant.