1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reason why the court stated this part of the basic fact is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendants’ lawsuit of confirmation of the substance of the main defense is recognized in cases where obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s uncertainty and risk.

As in the instant case, in a case where the Plaintiff possessed the leased real estate, seeking the delivery of the instant real estate is a direct means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s anxiety and risk of ownership effectively and appropriately, and thus, it is unlawful to seek confirmation of the absence of a lien on the instant real estate against the Defendants, as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. Although a lawsuit seeking performance of judgment can be brought, filing a lawsuit for confirmation is not a final solution of the dispute.

With respect to a person who claims a lien on real estate owned by another and occupies it, the owner of the relevant real estate is a direct means to effectively and appropriately remove the anxiety and risk of the ownership, and thus, separately seeking confirmation of the absence of a lien against the person who claims the lien does not have any benefit of confirmation, and thus, is unreasonable as the Defendants are alleged.

(2) The Majority Opinion argues that the Defendants are in possession of the instant real estate as of April 10, 2014, and that the Defendants are in possession of the instant real estate as of March 9, 2006, and that the said goods are in an objective relationship that appears to fall under a person’s factual control by social norms. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants possessed the instant real estate to the extent that the said requirements are met as of the date of closing argument. As such, the possession of the instant real estate, which is the requirement of a lien, is an element of the right of retention.