beta
(영문) 광주지방법원해남지원 2014.01.23 2012가합635

유치권부존재 확인

Text

1. The attached list that the Defendant reported on May 29, 2012 regarding the auction of the real estate B in this Court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 19, 201, the National Bank Co., Ltd. requested a voluntary auction as a mortgagee (No. 179762, Jul. 30, 2007, No. 179762, which was received on July 30, 2007) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “the entire real estate of this case” and the part of the building not presented in paragraph (5) among them, which was acquired from the National Bank Co., Ltd. on December 16, 201. The Plaintiff acquired the collateral security and the secured debt from the National Bank Co., Ltd. on December 16, 201.

B. On May 29, 2012, the Defendant reported the right of retention by designating KRW 154 million as the secured claim for the extended portion of the construction payment claim of this case regarding D (owner C’s wife) as the lessee of the entire real estate of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), witness E's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not have the defendant's claim for the construction price against D, and that the defendant did not possess the real estate of this case before the commencement of the auction of this case, and therefore there is no right of retention of the defendant.

B. 1) In a lawsuit seeking a passive confirmation of the burden of proof in a lawsuit seeking a passive confirmation, if the plaintiff asserts the fact that the cause of the right occurred by specifying the plaintiff's claim first, the defendant who is the right holder is liable to assert and prove the facts constituting the requisite of the right relationship. Thus, in this case, the defendant, claiming the lien holder, is liable to prove and prove the requisite of the right relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). 2), although the defendant submitted the evidence No. 1-7 on the basis of the conclusion of the construction contract, the defendant has no specific content of the construction contract, and the minimum contract deposit.