유치권부존재확인 청구의 소
1. Among the real estate listed in the attached list, the arrangement drawings of the building in the attached list shall be indicated1, (2), (3), (4), and (1);
1. On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a person who acquired the ownership by winning a successful bid for the real estate indicated in the separate sheet in the case of the application for the auction of real estate rent B at the Incheon District Court. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) around May 11, 2012, indicated the attached building layout among the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the above auction procedure, around May 11, 2012. A person who reported the lien on the lien of the portion of 50 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
2. Regarding the judgment on the claim of principal lawsuit, the possession of the right of retention is a requirement for establishing the right of retention and also a requirement for existence.
In other words, in case a person claiming a lien loses his possession, the lien shall also expire unless there are special circumstances.
However, such possession includes not only direct possession but also indirect possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da44788, Oct. 24, 2013). According to the health care unit, the statement of evidence No. 16, and the overall purport of oral argument as to the instant case, around August 13, 2014, which was conducted by the Plaintiff according to the order of delivery of real estate by the Incheon District Court, the Plaintiff acquired possession of the instant real estate based on the execution of delivery of real estate at the same court 2014No6097, which was conducted by the Plaintiff according to the order of delivery of real estate, from August 13, 2014. Thus, insofar as the Defendant did not possess it at the time of the date of the closing of the instant argument, the Defendant’s lien on the instant
Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is reasonable.
3. Judgment on a counterclaim
A. The Defendant alleged that he had occupied the instant real estate by asserting a lien, and had the enforcement officer misleads the Plaintiff to believe that the possessor of the instant real estate was an entertainment corporation.