유치권 부존재 확인
1. It is confirmed that no lien exists for each building listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant.
2...
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 2, 2014, each building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each building of this case”) as one of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, 101-dong 12, 12, located outside B, Nam-si, Namyang-si, the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “each building of this case”). On July 2, 2014, the Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction,
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant compulsory auction”). The Plaintiff paid the proceeds of sale on February 29, 2016, and paid the same year.
3. 11. The registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant buildings is completed in the future of the Plaintiff.
B. On June 21, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order with D and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter each of the above companies is specified in the trade name omitted) to claim the payment of the construction cost, and on June 23, 2016, the Defendant received a payment order stating that “D and E jointly and severally pay to the Defendant KRW 11,540,000 and the delay damages therefor,” and the payment order was finalized on the grounds that there was no objection thereto.
C. On November 23, 2016, the Defendant filed a request for auction based on a lien with the F of this Court for each of the instant buildings on November 23, 2016, and received a decision to commence voluntary auction (hereinafter “decision to commence voluntary auction”) on December 26 of the same year.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 10 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant did not establish a lien since the Plaintiff did not possess each of the buildings of this case. Even if the Plaintiff occupied each of the buildings of this case, even if they did not oppose the Plaintiff who acquired the ownership of each of the above buildings at the auction procedure, and received the decision of voluntary auction of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff was a lien holder.
B. The defendant and the contractor of each of the buildings of this case were ordered to supply new construction works from D, and the construction work is ordered to be subcontracted.