유치권부존재 확인의 소
1. Defendant B. In the case where the compulsory auction of the D real estate and the E-right auction of the real estate in the Daejeon District Court is combined, Defendant B.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 7, 2014, F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, on November 13, 2014, as to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”). On January 5, 2015, F completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “instant house”) newly constructed on the ground of the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the attached Table No. 448,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1, the G association.
B. On October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired F’s credit from G Cooperatives, and completed the instant mortgage transfer and registration.
C. On the application of H, I, and J with respect to each of the instant real estate, the Daejeon District Court started a compulsory auction on December 28, 2015, and upon the Plaintiff’s application, the Daejeon District Court’s official auction of real estate E, which was commenced on February 5, 2016, was consolidated (hereinafter “instant auction”). D.
In the instant auction procedure, Defendant B claimed that Defendant B had a claim for construction cost of KRW 14,60,000 on February 3, 2016, and Defendant C had a claim for construction cost of KRW 137,969,000 on January 22, 2016, and filed each lien report.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants did not have the secured debt related to the real estate of this case, or that the defendants did not possess the real estate of this case, so the defendants' right of retention is not established.
The claim for the construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff is a claim arising out of commercial activities, and the lien accordingly constitutes a commercial lien in its nature, and the Defendants’ claim for the construction cost.