유치권부존재 확인의 소
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. 51,850,000 won for Defendant New Airport Corporation
1. Basic facts
A. On July 2, 2013, in carrying out a loan to a fishery partnership corporation, our bank completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.2 billion with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate list as collateral (hereinafter “instant building”). On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the above loan claim from our bank on September 5, 2014, and completed the additional registration regarding the said right to collateral security on October 29, 2014.
B. As to the instant building, on December 9, 2013, Defendant A applied for a compulsory auction on real estate with Suwon District Court DD on December 9, 2013, and us bank applied for a compulsory auction on real estate in the same court E on April 23, 2014 and currently a duplicate auction is in progress. In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff succeeded to the creditor status of us bank.
C. In the above auction procedure, the Defendant New Daily Construction Co., Ltd. reported the right of retention of KRW 51,850,000 for the construction cost as of February 10, 2014; KRW 123,050,000 for the construction cost as of December 20, 2013; KRW 137,50,000 for both the Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.; KRW 817,000 for the construction cost as of February 10, 2014; KRW 817,00,000 for the construction cost as of February 11, 2014; KRW 123,200,000 for the construction cost as of March 7, 2014; and KRW 123,200,00 for the Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd. as the secured claim.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants did not occupy the instant building, and that there was no secured claim related to the instant building and the related secured claims, while the Defendants asserted that each of the instant construction claims as secured claims, the Defendants occupied the instant real estate from around 2013 and exercised the right of retention.
3. In the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the lien, if the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff would deny the fact of the cause of the lien seeking confirmation of absence by specifying the claim first, it would be disputed.