유치권부존재확인
1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.
2...
1. Indication of claim;
A. The relationship between the parties and the circumstances leading to the report of the instant lien (1) The Industrial Bank of Korea filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate regarding each of the instant real estate with A’s creditors and the pledgee on each of the instant real estate listed in the separate list owned by the Korea Security Industry (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), and with the Government District Court on February 6, 2014. On February 10, 2014, the said court rendered a decision to voluntarily commence auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and on February 12, 2014, completed the registration of the voluntary decision to commence auction on each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “registration of the decision to voluntarily commence auction”).
(2) The Plaintiff is a transferee who acquired a claim against A and the right to collateral security on each of the instant real estate from the Industrial Bank of Korea.
(3) On April 18, 2014, the Defendant asserted that it was the lien holder holding a claim equivalent to KRW 2,844,000,000 for the construction cost of each of the instant real estate at the instant auction procedure, and reported the lien on each of the instant real estate as the secured claim.
B. The non-existence of a right of retention for the Defendant appears to have not actually performed construction works on each of the instant real estate. Thus, even if a claim for the construction cost of this case exists, according to the contract for construction work submitted by the Defendant, the payment date of the remainder is June 30, 2009. The above claim for the construction cost of this case has already been completed after the lapse of three years from the payment date.
(2) Although the Defendant alleged the secured claim of the instant lien as “the aggregate price, the removal price, and the construction cost, etc.”, in the case of the removal price, there is no building to be removed and it cannot be deemed that the removal price is a claim on land. Therefore, there is no relation between the aforementioned removal price and each real estate of this case.