유치권확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as follows: (a) the court’s deletion of the fifth top five parts of the seventh part of the judgment of the court of first instance (L’s appeal and the continuation of Chuncheon District Court 2018No466) is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Whether an action against the defendant company is legitimate;
(a) Litigations for confirmation are permissible as legal action in respect of the benefit of confirmation in the event that there is an infeasible risk in rights or legal status, obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective way to solve the dispute fundamentally, and there is no other effective and adequate means.
On the other hand, the right of retention is a right that the creditor may refuse to occupy the owner of an article until he/she is reimbursed for a claim that has arisen with respect to the article of another person.
B. The Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant Company that the lien exists on the first and the sixth floor of the instant building.
The fact that ownership of the building of this case was transferred to the supplementary intervenor prior to the date of closing the argument in this case is recognized earlier.
In light of the following: (a) the Defendant Company is currently not the owner of the building of this case; (b) even if the Plaintiff received a favorable judgment against the Defendant Company in the lawsuit of this case filed against the Defendant Company, the said judgment does not affect the Intervenor; and (c) the Plaintiff may achieve its purpose by seeking confirmation of the existence of a lien against the Intervenor who acquired the ownership of the building of this case; (d) the Defendant Company was already dissolved before the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case; and (e) the Plaintiff did not express an explicit position regarding the Plaintiff’s right of retention in the lawsuit of this case, the building of this case against the Defendant Company, who is not the owner of the building of this case as of