1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant is operated among the buildings indicated in the annexed Form No. 1816 square meters on the ground of 1816 square meters in Tae-gun, Y

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On May 21, 2012, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) the code flus construction and G are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff on May 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant land”).

3) On the ground, multi-households built of reinforced concrete structure with a size of 1,821.12 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) On September 2012, the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction work from the construction period of KRW 1.847 billion (excluding value-added tax); and from May 25, 2012, to December 30, 2012, the construction period of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff, while performing the instant construction work, suspended the instant construction work in a state that, at the beginning of September 2012, 2012, a building operated among three buildings, among the three buildings in the instant case, to the floor construction of the second floor; and a multi-story building, to the third floor construction of the instant building, to be deemed an independent real estate in light of social norms (hereinafter “instant building”).

3) The Plaintiff failed to receive the construction cost for the part of the instant construction work executed by the Plaintiff, and through the Defendant and his husband, occupied the instant building owned by the said subcontractor through the Defendant and his husband, and acquired a lien with the claim for the construction cost as the secured claim. 4) However, the Defendant purchased the instant land on August 27, 2013 from the voluntary auction procedure (Susan District Court Seosan Branch C) upon the application of the Agricultural Cooperatives, which is a mortgagee of the instant land, and paid the sale price thereof.

5) Since the Defendant purchased the instant land on which the instant building exists denied the Plaintiff’s above lien, there is a benefit to be confirmed that there exists the Plaintiff’s above lien on the instant building. (B) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is in dispute between the parties as to the relevant legal relationship, and thereby, is rendered a judgment of confirmation when there is apprehension or risk of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.