손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. The following judgments are added to the argument that there is no intention or gross negligence as to the absence of a lien by the defendant under the fourth 9th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance.
The defendant, from May 20, 2008, occupied all D apartment units including the apartment of this case, with claims, such as gas facility construction cost, etc. for the development of compensation industry, as secured claim. On October 24, 2009, E, who purchased D apartment units, confirmed the existence of this right of retention. On November 2015, conciliation was concluded under the premise that the defendant's right of retention exists in the case of applying for the conciliation of the building delivery against the successful bidder of D apartment units against the defendant. On January 2, 2016, the decision was made to dismiss the above successful bidder's application under the premise that D apartment units have the defendant's right of retention in the case of applying for the order of real estate delivery against the defendant. The defendant asserted that the defendant did not have intention or gross negligence as to the absence of the right of retention for the apartment of this case, and therefore, it does not constitute an illegal possession of the apartment of this case.
On February 18, 2011, the savings bank applied for a voluntary auction against D apartment including the instant apartment, and the decision of voluntary auction was made on February 18, 201, and the entry registration was completed on the same day. The facts that the Defendant reported a lien in the above auction procedure on April 28, 201 are recognized as above.
However, each statement of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 alone is the apartment of this case from before the defendant completed the registration of the entry of the above decision to commence the auction.