1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is the same as the part concerning the defendant under Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it shall accept it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant ex officio (after the closing of argument in the auction procedure in this case, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant was concluded, and thus the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant ought to be dismissed as there is no interest in the lawsuit). According to Article 91(5) of the Civil Execution Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the auction procedure to exercise the security right pursuant to Article 268 of the same Act, the lien holder may not claim the successful bidder for the repayment of the secured claim, but may refuse to deliver the real estate, which is the object of the custody, until the secured claim is repaid, so the bidder in the auction procedure may not easily deliver the object of auction from the lien holder after the successful bid. Accordingly, the real estate for the purpose of auction is likely to be awarded at a lower price.

As such, the Plaintiff’s amount of distribution, which is a mortgagee who applied for auction due to a successful bid at a low price, has decreased or the risk of sales itself impossible due to a large amount of lien declaration compared to the value of the objects of auction is an unstable legal status of the Plaintiff in the auction procedure. Thus, the Plaintiff’s interest to remove the said unstable cannot be deemed as a mere

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da32848 Decided September 23, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409 Decided March 10, 2016, etc.). However, in light of the overall purport of the pleading in the statement in subparagraph 9, it is recognized that the payment of dividends was terminated on May 12, 2016 in the instant auction procedure, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be said to have any such apprehensions as above, and therefore, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of a lien from the Plaintiff.

Although Article 578 (1) of the Civil Code is applicable.