유치권부존재확인
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. Aid by intervention among the total costs of the lawsuit.
1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2, No. 10 to No. 3, No. 14) is the same with the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of
Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance is dismissed as follows.
f. On December 29, 2016, the court of auction held that each of the instant real estate was the highest bidder on December 29, 2016, the supplementary intervenor of the Plaintiff’s successor (hereinafter referred to as “ supplementary intervenor”).
The decision to permit the sale of each real estate was made on February 3, 2017, and the assistant intervenor paid in full the proceeds of sale on February 3, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estate. [Grounds for recognition] The facts of no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 11, and Eul evidence 24 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply)
(i) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of the lien is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
B. Determination 1) The risk of the decrease of the amount of dividends due to a successful bid based on the report on lien is unstable in the legal status of the mortgagee during the auction procedure. As such, the interests of the mortgagee who removes such apprehension cannot be considered as a mere de facto or economic interest, the mortgagee has legal interest in seeking confirmation of the existence of the lien (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da32848, Sept. 23, 2004). According to the factual relations seen earlier, since each of the instant real estate was owned by the Intervenor on February 3, 2017 due to the sale of each of the instant real estate by the auction procedure, and the right to collateral security of the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff was extinguished, the Plaintiff’s successor did not take measures for his legal and economic interest in the instant auction procedure except receiving dividends from the date of distribution.
The Plaintiff’s Intervenor is the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.